Slashdot Mirror

Don't get too excited. My (Irish) friend told me it already the pay-to-pee scheme has already started happening. Here's some proof. Never underestimate what Michael will do to increase revenues. I would not so easily discount this as just a PR move.

Ryanair's boss Michael O'Leary is known for this kind of brainfarts. He knows the press will talk about it for days, so it is all free publicity. He gives a rats ass about the image of the company, since its image is that they are cheap. More of his brilliant ideas: paying for toilets, flying without co-pilot and having a flight attended land it in case of trouble and airplanes with standing room only. They run some provoking advertisements too, like giving the finger to their competitors, or giving holiday suggestions for Berlusconi (he finally resigned a few hours ago!).

The cerebal palsy is not mentioned in Slashdot's TFA, but if you Google it, you can find that she really does have it. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2057419/Judge-William-Adams-beat-disabled-daughter-Hillary-video-WONT-charged.html

Furthermore she says she waited seven years because she feared for her safety.

Hoots Mon! A Criibins! Siri naet awl its cracked upta b!>

Morgenthaler's comments echo the recent article in Forbes Magazine, 'Why Siri Is a Google Killer' that says that Apple's biggest advantage over any other voice application out there today is the massive data Siri will collect in the next 2 years — all being stored in Apple's massive North Carolina data center — that will allow Siri to get better and better.

Most people will want a phone that just works.

And yes, I know this did not happen in America. It happened in Israel. But it happens in America all the time too.

Sheriff removes cable TV from the prisons and the court system orders him to put it back.

$280,000 on cable bill for about 20 prisons.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20081204_12_0_OKLAHO673257

U.K how much on toys for prisoners? Why not spend that money on children instead?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1040932/Pampered-prisoners-supplied-221-726-PlayStations.html

The actual problem is that the data shows no warming in the past ten years: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html

Please explain why the very data being discussed shows no warming in the past ten years: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html

And what kind of term do we apply to this, where Muller tried to hide that the data shows ZERO warming in the past DECADE? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html

Mod parent up! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html

This aspect of it is news, and pretty critical at that: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html

What it would take is consistent data. Instead, what the data in this latest study shows is that while there has been warming in the past century, there was ZERO warming in the last DECADE: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html

> Anyway, getting back on topic, this data will not convince the 99% of the AGW whose beliefs about global warming aren't even remotely rooted in science, and so the dark ages in the US will continue.

Did you actually look at what the data shows? Zero temperature rise in the last decade: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html

The article is even more misleading that that: the actual data shows NO temperature increase in the past DECADE: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html

Not sure what's it like in the US, but the rationale behind mandatory car insurance is simple, the slipknot equation explains it: PEOPLE = SHIT. If you hit somebody with your car and don't have insurance, they will sue you to get paid. Except you could hide your money and claim you don't have any. So you get your money, walk away free, and the person you hit doesn't get medical attention (because he's broke AND doesn't have medical insurance, cause he thought he'd never need it).

You know what happens if the law gets so fucked up that paying compensation for killing someone is less than having to pay for their treatment? This:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2052815/Xiong-Maoke-5-dies-latest-horrific-Chinese-traffic-accident.html

So don't think people can be trusted to do anything that won't give them a direct AND immediate benefit. People are shit, man. Everywhere.

"Brendan Nyhan at the University of Michigan undertook a study that found that when people were shown information that proved that their beliefs were wrong they actually became more entrenched in their original beliefs. This is known in the business as 'backfire'. And what's more, highly intelligent people tend to suffer backfire more than less intelligent people do, making us immune to any facts that are counter to our strongly held beliefs."

I guess it comes down to who you trust more: The Academy of Sciences, NASA, CSIRO, the Royal Academy, and all the major scientific institutions of the world, or the Daily Mail science section, which commonly has articles like the 100 foot killer snake stalking people in Borneo:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1149743/Picture-100ft-long-snake-sparks-fears-mythical-monster-Borneo.html

For what it's worth, things still aren't on the up-and-up regarding the data, even in this case.

--

Help find a cure for cancer. Join the [H]orde [hardfolding.com]

Really? Your Mormon belief system allows you to trust science when it's finding a cure for cancer or an Interweb where you can post your bullshit, but on climatology you put your faith in a tabloid? Please, would you and the rest of Utah cede from the union and take your dangerous, inconsistent thinking with you?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html

This report has not been peer-reviewed, and no one should draw any conclusions yet. The "pre-publication" of this report is reportedly the work of the report's primary author; none of the co-authors were consulted. The Daily Mail is reporting that one of the co-authors, Prof Judith Curry, has even begun to distance herself from the report. I predict that nothing good will come of this pre-publishing gambit; this entire approach will confuse rather than clarify, and real science will bear yet another black mark.

Now... the denialists on SlashDot are saying ..

Such a weak strawman. No wonder you had to post as Anonymous Coward...
The real news of this story is that the co author slammed him, accused him of hiding data and put forth more data that shows you are basically full of shit.

Scientist who said climate change sceptics had been proved wrong accused of hiding truth by colleague
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html

Another researcher working on the same project seems to disagree. Judith Curry is the second name on the paper according to the daily mail and she's contesting the analysis of his own data as incorrect with some rather strong language.

Then again.... I'm an idiot.....

What they've confirmed is that there was indeed a warming trend from about 1970 (or so) through about 2000. Before that, nothing significant. Since then, nothing significant. So we have a 30-year period of warming. That's an extremely short period when you're talking climate science. It also inconveniently doesn't match up with carbon dioxide emissions growth.

So the questions remain, as you say: "is it caused by man?" and (if I may paraphrase) "what, if anything, should we do about it?" Those two questions are quite significant, and completely separate from the furor about the earth warming/not warming.

For what it's worth, things still aren't on the up-and-up regarding the data, even in this case.

France and Germany are economic powerhouses, and both of them have universal health care.

You really are living in the past.

"... France has lived beyond its means, for nakedly political reasons, for longer than most people alive can remember ..."
"... This would be bad enough if the French enjoyed German-style economic health: but they do not ..."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2037509/French-banking-crisis-Frances-hour-reckoning.html

However, he (Muller) admitted it was true that the BEST data suggested that world temperatures have not risen for about 13 years. But in his view, this might not be ‘statistically significant’, Scientist who said climate change sceptics had been proved wrong accused of hiding truth by colleague

If you think Muller was thrown under a bus by the skeptics then the hockey team over at realclimate ran him over, stopped and backup over him.

Interesting article, Climate skeptics perform independent analysis, finally convinced Earth is getting warmer our Climate skeptic, Richard Muller, that would be Richard Muller, also President and Chief Scientist of Muller & Associates a consultancy providing GreenGov services to Governments, International Organizations, non profits; not exactly good for skeptic cred. I also found this interesting

Watts had written, "Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and unidirectionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant 'global warming' in the 20th century." Now, after Berkeley Earth's release, he claims to have never questioned that the Earth had warmed. Other prominent skeptics are saying similar things.

apparently the author, John Timmer doesn't understand that saying that something can't be proven by the evidence presented isn't the same as saying an event did or didn't occur. Then there is the shenanigans surround the release of the non-peer reviewed drafts, that Judith Curry, one of the BEST Co-Authors not only didn't know in advance that the paper while being reviewed by many people most likely to be critical of the paper were still under non-disclosure agreements as reviewers, that the paper was going to be released to the public as a draft

It would have been smart to consult me.’ She (Prof Judith Curry, who chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology, and the second named co-author of the BEST project’s four research papers) said it was unfortunate that although the Journal of Geophysical Research had allowed Prof Muller to issue the papers, the reviewers were, under the journal’s policy, forbidden from public comment. Scientist who said climate change sceptics had been proved wrong accused of hiding truth by colleague

  furthermore

he (Professor Richard Muller, of Berkeley University in California) admitted it was true that the BEST data suggested that world temperatures have not risen for about 13 years. But in his view, this might not be ‘statistically significant’,

they still can't determine whether or not the warming of the past few decades is still occurring or not!

But they do have battery powered hair clippers.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2052020/Amish-bishop-cult-leader-Sam-Mullet-rules-community-iron-fist-harsh-punishments.html

Lighting up the planets northern hemisphere isn't impressive ? or majestic ?

So by your definition, all auroras are epic? This was a big aurora - no argument. But it's not as 'impressively great' as to be called 'epic' because auroras like this happen once every year-or-so (more now that we are approaching a solar maximum). If it was the biggest, most impressive aurora in about 50 years then maybe it could be described as epic, but it wasn't - in fact, there was one just a month ago: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2042428/Best-auroras-seen-Britain-thanks-huge-solar-flares.html

Not really true: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2036935/Natasha-MacBryde-death-Facebook-internet-troll-Sean-Duffy-jailed.html

Like saying chlorine is poisonous so it should be banned and then cracking down on the importation of salt; this treaty shows a profound lack of chemistry and biology education.

Think of the most absurd and ridiculous proposal you can... and an American politician has probably already proposed it:

"New York restaurants face salt ban in new health bill... causing chefs' blood pressure to soar"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1257414/New-York-restaurants-face-salt-ban-new-health--causing-chefs-blood-pressure-soar.html

I think the ban is on Sodium Chloride - try cooking with Sea salt.

Meanwhile, I'd like a ban on Monosodium Glutamate (MSG) in restaurants - too many apply the "Essence of Flavor" with a tablespoon (and often will lie about using it at all, when asked) and what MSG does is modify your body chemistry to register flavors more strongly - if that isn't unethical then I give up.

Like saying chlorine is poisonous so it should be banned and then cracking down on the importation of salt; this treaty shows a profound lack of chemistry and biology education.

Think of the most absurd and ridiculous proposal you can... and an American politician has probably already proposed it:

"New York restaurants face salt ban in new health bill... causing chefs' blood pressure to soar"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1257414/New-York-restaurants-face-salt-ban-new-health--causing-chefs-blood-pressure-soar.html

So tell me Mr. Jobs are you some kind of a god? where you should be able to shamelessly take others concepts as your own but others should not? Or is it that you are just a super hypocrite?

Mr Jobs, is this what your company is attempting to do with other people's code through the use of blatant software-patents? and other dubious software-patents?

So using software patents to gain control of code that you or your company did not write is cool?

try this test: Write down a verbose description of the design, using as few actual measurements as possible. For the iPad, this would be something like "A rectangular platform with a glossy front surface. The front has a touch screen surrounded by a bezel roughly half an inch wide. There is a single concave button on a short side of the bezel with a picture of a house on it. The reverse is nondescript, with few markings except an Apple logo. In profile, the device has an overall flat appearance and curved edges, and is roughly a quarter of an inch thick." Now write one for the Galaxy Tab, and the 2001 tablet. Compare all three. If two descriptions are mostly the same (in meaning), the products are likely indistinguishable.

Funny, you should probably try that test with this or this or any one of these.

I see people keep posting that bit of propaganda take a look here http://www.2imgs.com/6c941c36e5 THe injunction that Apple got in the Netherlands was for a "Displaying thumbnails in a photo app" and that is software patent. not for patent a rectangle design patent which the judge thew out due to prior art. And prior art there is. Take a gander here.

Apple should have done that too Or is it ok to steal conecpts what about actual products?.

How many times should Apple copy others designs before before people finally recognize that yes, Apple are, in fact, copying other people's concepts.

Really?
http://www.2imgs.com/6c941c36e5
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1381528/Knight-Ridder-tablet-looks-just-like-iPad-17-YEARS-OLD.html

Let me ask you this. Honestly who copied who? When you go here and here can you honestly say Apple didn't copy anyone?

You should take a look here. and look here too this one is golden.

And what does Apple's current generation of products look like? Gosh Florian you can do better than that.

All fun and joke and bias aside does apple compete without copyiing? other's concepts? I mean they didn't create the GUI the just brought it to the consumer marketplace. They didn't create the touch screen rectangular tablet they just brought it to the consumer market. They didn't create music downloading software Napster was there first. What if Naptser patented the concept of music download software?

Secondly, 'several ambulances'? People 'writhing on the floor, fainting and vomiting'? Here's what actually happened:

Indeed, I read TFA, and what a load of wasted words. The only reference to the actual event in the article is:

According to reports, two British Red Cross workers overseeing the event at the Kismot Indian restaurant in Edinburgh but became overwhelmed by the number of casualties and ambulances were called. Half of the 20 people who took part in the challenge dropped out after witnessing the first diners vomiting, collapsing, sweating and panting.

So, where does those reports (mind you, plural!) lead to? To the undisputedly unreliable Dail Liar^H^H^H^HMail !!!

The story on the local BBC site (unbiased as long as it is not about foreign wars) confirms CrazyBusErrors story, it is about two whackos doing stupid things. The whole 'can it kill you' meme was added by LiveScience to gain page views.

There's been a case where they suspect the guy died from an overdose:
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2008/09/how-chilis-can-kill.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1063598/Aspiring-chef-dies-hours-making-ultra-hot-sauce-chilli-eating-contest.html

From what I understand the guy had eaten chilis before with no problems.

Maybe he was allergic to something else. Or was unlucky to suddenly become allergic to chillis.

Muslims burn more mosques than any other group -- they kill more muslims than any other group. Their own doctrine mandates the killing of anyone who draws a picture or acts the part of Mohammad. They issue death sentences for blasphemy. They issue death sentences for leaving Islam. Show me any other religion/government (Islam is both) that holds these same policies. Israel/Judaism certainly doesn't. The fact that both the Dome of the Rock and the Al Aqsa mosque both reside in Jerusalem (and are not regularly burned) only adds weight to the documented proof of staging presented in Pallywood.

But, by all means, continue buy the narrative. Presenting fact is islamophobia, and dissent is extremism.

It seems this sort of path is not uncommon for child prodigies. Growing up isn't just about academic needs.

1. Police have generally been favorable to or at least tolerant of Tea Party protests. They have been hostile and violent towards Occupy Wall St.

That's because the Tea Party doesn't defecate on their cars. Daily Mail

...allowed in the European Union? It really compromises the image of the whole entity that they have no problem with this absurd level of corruption. This is obviously another censorship/media control ploy by Berlusconi, and I wouldn't be surprised if this was specifically designed to hurt Wikipedia.

Very good question. I have been worried about the situation in Italy for long. The country is ruled by a media-controlling Prime Minister, while the parliament is paralyzed by deep corruption, reckless spending and robbing the tax money. And, I mean really, really unbelievable stuff, like the mayor of a small province earning more than the President of the United States.

I think EU is essentially in the cross-roads of three alternative paths:

1. Keep going on like this, from crisis to crisis, with disparity in levels of democracy and wealth between different parts of the Union.
2. Turn in to a Federation, subordinating national parliaments to one Federal Parliament in Brussels.
3. Split into two or more sub-Unions (Corrupt South, Torn East and Prosperous North).

I feel like the second path is the only feasible way to proceed. First option means ever-continuing disparity within the Union, which will stall its political and economic development forever. Third option is a solution, but not a very constructive one. It would mean a new divide in Europe, akin to the times of the Cold War, and a step back of over seven decades politically.

If EU became a Federation with a corpus of Federal Law, and national legislation became subject to repeal by Federal courts, it would truly make EU a uniform, legally homogenous area, where all EU citizens and businesses would really have equal rights, responsibilities and opportunities from the shores of Black Sea in Romania to the Atlantic cliffs in Ireland, and from the tip of Gibraltar in Iberia to the rural fells of Lapland. Doing business and living in Europe would become ever more easier, as human rights would be universally respected.

Maybe the current crisis will have only one possible outcome: the establishment of the Federal Government of the European Union.

clearly no one has read:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2044627/Europe-Canada-Russia-risk-second-hole-ozone-layer-opens-Arctic.html

Which may be a cause of this situation. I certainly don't believe that plant food ( CO2 ) is a pollutant that causes global warming. That's like saying dihydrogen monoxide Is a horrible chemical compound that can kill people. And the people that are stupid enough to die from water intoxication should be dead. These eco freaks will believe any half truths and bald faced lie. "The people will believe a big lie, but not a small lie." - Adolf Hitler

So teenagers with breasts are not allowed to, well, be teenagers; but parents are still allowed to push their pre-teen kids into beauty contests complete with swimsuit competions and prostitute dress-ups?

The types of people who villify sexting are the dirty old men-types who jack off to teen porn and pop boners watching their daughters play in the pool while being pissed that they couldn't have the same fun when they were younger, then spend the rest of their time praying for forgiveness and validating their perversions by projecting them onto others.

Furthermore, you are now putting moral obligations on a government, which is a strange way to deal with morality and eventually leads to collapse of morality.

By the way, here is an interesting piece about UK UHC doctors talking about stopping the terminal cancer patients from being able to continue their treatment because there are no resources for it (obviously, a system that is dead set on removing all risk eventually collapses under the weight of those impossible to meet obligations. This applies to health care as well as education and money, everything.)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2042172/Dont-terminal-cancer-patients-drugs-just-prolong-lives-say-experts.html

The point is that resources are actually scarce, government systems make the treatments more expensive by putting government money there, and this ends up costing lives at the end, while in a free market the medical costs would be coming down, not going up all the time, because technology actually makes things more efficient and costs come down. So if in the past an exploratory surgery was needed for something that only requires an imaging procedure today, and if somebody is taking pills against something that they would have a surgery for decades ago, etc., that means technology allows efficiencies to go up and costs to come down, but government money prevents the costs from coming down and forces them up.

Obama by the way, came to an agreement in his plan, with pharma companies, which gave those companies extension on their patents. What do you think that does to the costs of drugs? Right. Any government involvement into any industry causes costs to go up, never down. It's impossible for costs to go down with government intervention, after all, it's an entire system set up to regulate and impose bureaucracy over innovative fields and ideas and technology. And it provides government money, which means more money is chasing the scarce resources. Of-course costs go up.

So more money is introduced into the system.
More regulations, that cause costs to go up.
More protections against competition.

How can anybody expect costs to come down with government involvement? If costs are high, competition is low, then there will be more death.

Here are some links from this very article comments, collected for your (in)covenience.

I hope you can find which one corresponds to which one of the points you all keep repeating.

Well this was much further ahead in 1994 than the registered drawing that Apple patented.