Slashdot Mirror

Apple claims developers have made $15B since 2008. That's 6 years. If you divided it out equally, that $2.5B per year. In contrast, Adobe alone takes in $4B a year in revenues. Even if you assume that the market has grown substantially and 2013 developer payouts were half, that's still $7.5 billion.

Interesting statistics you present there. Too bad they are a little out of date: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markrogowsky/2014/07/22/apple-earnings-live/ - "developers have now made $20 billion from the App Store, nearly half in the past 12 months"

The iOS marketplace is still a lot smaller than the general software marketplace in terms of revenue thanks to the ridiculously low prices Apple has pushed on app developers.

I guess Apple can't win here - either they don't have enough free apps, or they are too cheap.

I only said 10%,

Then where does the 10% claim come from?

Oh right - it was made up by AV vendors trying to scare peopple into buying their products.

Unless you’ve had your head under a rock you’ll have noticed the latter is fast becoming the weapon of choice for Google’s rivals in attempting to curtail the former. On paper it should. Android malware rose from 238 threats in 2012 to 804 new threats in 2013. What was the combined total of new threats for Apple iOS, BlackBerry OS and Microsoft Windows Phone in that time? Zero. The remaining 3% came from Nokia’s axed Symbian platform.

All of which poses a very valid question: how do you stay safe on Android? Perhaps surprisingly the answer is: easily. Why? Because here’s the part Google’s rivals don’t want you to know: the figures are misleading.

Let’s be clear. From a statistical viewpoint researcher and security specialist F-Secure got them right. Android does account for 97% of all mobile malware, but it comes from small, unregulated third party app stores predominantly in the Middle East and Asia. By contrast the percentage of apps carrying malware on Google’s official Play Store was found to be just 0.1%

http://www.forbes.com/sites/go...

So that one's busted. Anything else you'd like to sell?

Of-course I completely forgot to mention all of the service prices that are rising, from accounting, to lawyers, to court fees, to mailing, to education, to car repair, etc.

Did I forget to mention coffee and coffee shops?

Obviously water

They will talk about drought and bandits and weather and climate and every single excuse under the Sun except for the actual real cause of this nonsense: inflation.

Here's how a REAL professional behaves. The CEO of Boeing told analysis that he makes his employees "cower", and actually thought that would be a funny joke. Everyone knew that Steve Jobs was something of an asshole. So is Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates. A lot of the most famous and effective military leaders were real sons of bitches as well. Patton comes to mind, as does his long-time rival, Monty. Norman Schwarzkopf was known for his fiery temper, which gave him the nickname "Stormin' Norman".

Most professional communities are rather pragmatic, and ultimately rewards *success* above all else, unless you cross over a very big line, like doing something illegal, or embarrassing your company to such a degree that it has a negative effect on business (e.g. Patton slapping a soldier). There may something about those personality types that are driven to succeed. It's not universal, of course. Pete Carrol, the head coach of last year's Superbowl winning Seattle Seahawks, is known for being a very nice and laid-back guy, and doesn't fit the typical mode of the "screamer" type coaches we've all seen.

Look, I'm not going to defend Torvold's rants. I think they're childish as well, but let's not kid ourselves. These sort of rants and worse happen all the time in "professional" environments. Would it be great if people were universally nicer to each other? Sure. But when getting a job done, is being nice or being competent more important?

At least he hasn't tossed any chairs around that we know of.

I was kind of assuming that people knew all the cited examples were skewed in favor of women. I specifically put in models as an example to counter the argument that these are not highly paid positions. So since we're ruining the humor by explaining this, we might as well go all the way and cite Forbes for some model examples.

U.S. Medical Device Industry In Critical Condition

The United States has been the global leader in medical devices, one of the few major industries that both boasts a net trade surplus and is a job-creator. The sector employs 400,000 Americans directly and is indirectly responsible for almost 2 million more that supply and support the highly-skilled workforce. Most important, its products are essential elements of modern medical care, including everything from CT scanners and pacemakers to blood pressure cuffs and robots used by surgeons.

But all of that is in jeopardy. The medical device industry is being ravaged by unwise public policy, including a devastating 2.3% excise tax took effect on Jan 1 as part of ObamaCare. This tax, which has already required the payment of more than $1 billion by device manufacturers, is especially pernicious because it is assessed on gross sales, not profits. To put this in perspective, imagine that you’re a manufacturer of medical devices and had a profit of $100,000 on sales of $1 million after all your costs and expenses—everything from materials and labor to research. The excise tax would be $23,000, wiping out almost a quarter of your profits. .....

The nation’s medical device industry is vulnerable. It is not comprised of behemoths: 80% of its companies have 50 or fewer employees, the very businesses we are relying on to turn the U.S. economy around. The new excise tax comes on top of increased stringency and delays at both the FDA and the U.S. Patent Office, and at the same time that many device firms are shutting down or moving abroad to take advantage of the more favorable tax and regulatory climate in Europe. The tax is forcing companies to lay off employees, cut back on research and development, and reduce capital investment.

The Times They Are A Changing

One sector that is seeing a rapid investment drop is healthcare and devices. That has hurt the North Carolina VC industry harder than it hurt Boston. It’s also subject to some longer term trends. Obamacare has a medical device tax buried in it-and it has caused money to pull back from taking risk in healthcare while everything gets sorted out. The FDA is a horrible bureaucratic organization to deal with, and they have made it hard to innovate

This is not new.... you can get yourself sued for writing a (honest but) negative review.... http://www.forbes.com/sites/in...

Percentage of US consumers using broadband 74%
http://www.forbes.com/sites/gr...

Percentage of US marketshare served by Comcast 25%
http://www.dailytech.com/Marke...

Percentage of Comcast customers on IPV6 30%
RTFS

Percentage of people that use Google 100%
http://google.com/

ASSUMING NOBODY ELSE HAS IPV6 EXCEPT COMCAST 5.5% PRODUCT

Google says 4%

It lets them do things like see the last time you bought a pregnancy test and a few months later, start putting specials for baby products in the next email you get sent by them on behalf of your local supermarket.

Amateurs.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/fo...

anecdotes

Prove very little and when published in a form like this prove even less. Sexual harassment and assault are highly politicized and in many cases overstated. When the mere accusation of sexual harassment in the form of making dongle jokes in a private conversation can end careers it's blatant sexism to claim it's not taken seriously enough. Sexism? yes: spreading fear that men are abusive and dangerous.

Ive personally never heard of a man in the games industry getting rape threats for having an opinion.

Death threats are every bit as common. Being a different gender means the hatred may be sexualized. "No rape threats against men" is a piss poor measure. How about coming up with some actual numbers reflecting the supposedly heightened hostility against women? Because no I won't take your word for it.

Many men believe women have no worth in the games industry beyond appearance.
The video game industry is particularly egregious at only representing women as sex objects. As such, many gamers are trained to only see women in that context.

Would you care to back that up with facts? A survey maybe? Because it sounds like you pulled it straight from whence many of your other claims come. One sexist asshole does not a culture make. There are many games with strongfemale characters. And don't say sexy clothes prove gamers are sexist unless you want to talk about the thousands of hulking, musclebound men in games.

This kind of harassment leaves long-lasting damage. It affects our friendships, and can cause us to be distant from others.

So your overly sensitive friend proves that the same hatred is worse when leveled against women? Equality means standing up for yourself. If you want to be a damsel in distress you don't want equality.

Women in the industry are told by men what is valid for us to feel.

No, women in general are told they're special and need everyone to cater to them. Then the gaming industry didn't cater as much garnering feminist ire. You can feel whatever you want but so can I.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/sa...

Netflix is choosing to fight back over rights fees, with original content, not disks.

There is often a disconnect between what makes sense to an informed individual, and what makes sense to people who bet with their money. Money is saying disks are dead, and rewarding streaming.

"We're happy to see that TAILS 1.1 is being released tomorrow. Our multiple RCE/de-anonymization zero-days are still effective."

via @ExodusIntel: https://twitter.com/ExodusInte...

#$%#

"Exploit Dealer: Snowden's Favourite OS TAILS Has Zero-Day Vulnerabilities Lurking Inside"

Thomas Brewster | Security | 7/21/2014 @ 2:14PM

http://www.forbes.com/sites/th...

#$%#

"The flaws work on the latest version of TAILS and allow for the ability to exploit a targeted user, both for de-anonymisation and remote code execution," said Loc Nguyen a researcher at Exodus. Remote code execution means a hacker can do almost anything they want to the victimâ(TM)s system, such as installing malware or siphoning off files.

"Considering that the purpose of TAILS is to provide a secure non-attributable platform for communications, users are verifiably at-risk due to these flaws. For the TAILS platform, privacy is contingent on maintaining anonymity and ensuring their actions and communications are not attributable. Thus, any violation of those foundational pillars should be considering highly critical," added Nguyen. This affects every user of TAILS, who should all "diversify security platforms so as not to put all your eggs in one basket", he added.

All users, including Snowden, should be wary of using TAILS with a false sense of security, though itâ(TM)s still more likely to protect anonymity than Windows. Exodus sells to private and public businesses hoping to use the findings for either offensive or defensive means. Those unconcerned about governments targeting their systems might not be concerned about the TAILS zero-days. Others will likely be anxious one of their trusted tools to avoid government hackers contains vulnerabilities that could be exploited to spy on any user of the OS."

#$%#

Don't look, Snowden: Security biz chases TAILS with zero-day flaws alert
Exodus vows not to sell secrets of whistleblower's favorite OS

By Iain Thomson | 21 Jul 2014

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...

#$%#

RE: TAILS: https://tails.boum.org/

"We're happy to see that TAILS 1.1 is being released tomorrow. Our multiple RCE/de-anonymization zero-days are still effective."

via @ExodusIntel: https://twitter.com/ExodusInte...

#$%#

"Exploit Dealer: Snowden's Favourite OS Tails Has Zero-Day Vulnerabilities Lurking Inside"

Thomas Brewster | Security | 7/21/2014 @ 2:14PM

http://www.forbes.com/sites/th...

#$%#

"The flaws work on the latest version of Tails and allow for the ability to exploit a targeted user, both for de-anonymisation and remote code execution," said Loc Nguyen a researcher at Exodus. Remote code execution means a hacker can do almost anything they want to the victimâ(TM)s system, such as installing malware or siphoning off files.

"Considering that the purpose of Tails is to provide a secure non-attributable platform for communications, users are verifiably at-risk due to these flaws. For the Tails platform, privacy is contingent on maintaining anonymity and ensuring their actions and communications are not attributable. Thus, any violation of those foundational pillars should be considering highly critical," added Nguyen. This affects every user of Tails, who should all "diversify security platforms so as not to put all your eggs in one basket", he added.

All users, including Snowden, should be wary of using Tails with a false sense of security, though itâ(TM)s still more likely to protect anonymity than Windows. Exodus sells to private and public businesses hoping to use the findings for either offensive or defensive means. Those unconcerned about governments targeting their systems might not be concerned about the Tails zero-days. Others will likely be anxious one of their trusted tools to avoid government hackers contains vulnerabilities that could be exploited to spy on any user of the OS."

#$%#

Don't look, Snowden: Security biz chases Tails with zero-day flaws alert
Exodus vows not to sell secrets of whistleblower's favorite OS

By Iain Thomson | 21 Jul 2014

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...

A few States tried it too. And they succeeded

Georgia: http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/05/17/the-law-of-unintended-consequences-georgias-immigration-law-backfires/
Arizona: http://business.time.com/2012/06/14/the-fiscal-fallout-of-state-immigration-laws/
Alabama: http://business.time.com/2012/06/14/the-fiscal-fallout-of-state-immigration-laws/
Indiana: I couldn't find a decent article specifically about Indiana, but it's the same story.

The good news is that by shooting themselves in the foot, Georgia, Arizona, Alabama, and Indiana provided a wonderful example of what not to do. All the other States that were thinking about passing similar laws... didn't. Or they exempted farm and maid labor, which more or less undercuts the core purpose of such laws.

And those corporations are also welfare recipients. As for sources, take your pick. Forbes is probably good.

I have no idea how you came up with the number 80% of Wal-Mart employees are on government assistance, but a report Wal-Mart: A Progressive Success Story, by Jason Furman - Obama's own advisor, states that the number of employees on public assistance is "in line" with other companies of its size.

There are many definitions of "public assistance." There also turn out to be many definitions of "employee," mostly revolving around whether you mean "full-time" and just how many hour constitute full-time.

Walmart, for example, claims that fewer than half their employees are part time, but Partnership for a Healthy America claims that more than half of Walmart employees are part time. "Public assistance" may mean just cash assistance or SNAP (food stamps), or may include medicaid and school lunch programs. Regardless of how you spin the details, it's clear that low-wage employees cost taxpayers. Keeping the minimum wage below subsistence levels is a way for employers to siphon money out of taxpayers pockets and slide it to their bottom line. If you're in favor of low taxes, then you should be in favor of a liveable minimum wage.

The outlook that states the pie is only so large - if I get rich someone else has to get poorer - is a fallacy perpetuated by progressives to justify redistribution. It's simply not how our economy works. But it is an economic reality that increasing the minimum wage decreases profits which increases costs to the consumer. That being said, if we are going to have a minimum wage at all, it should be reasonable with adjustments for inflation

Henry Ford thaought that the employees should be able to but th product.

Today, that is apprantly no longer true. The employee must be paid as absolutely little as possible, so that the sharholders are served.

But what happens when no one buys the product any more?

Here is the http://www.forbes.com/sites/cl...

Although WalMart points to a 2005 report to invalidate those socialists at Forbes. I know WalMart employees who haven't had a raise since then.

McDonald's cost's us 1.2 billion dollars in Government support.

THere is even more data, but I figured you would just say that Huffpost and Daily Kos were tools of the liberal elite. You can Google it if you like

Now that we are here, I would like to talk about how my Tax dollars and yours are going to support the low wages that these companies say they have to pay their workers?

I thought that Government was inefficient, and spends the money poorly. So why should we subsidize McDonalds and WalMart so that they can pay their employees less? Would it not make sense to pay the employees directly? 6.2 Billion dollars is one fucking gobsmack of a tax break for WalMart. And it's semi hidden, allowing them to act like the free market superstars while they are secretly socialist redistribution of your money and mine to thos epoor people w e've been trained to know are the source of all their problems.

As an aside, there's plenty of above-minimum-wage jobs out there if you know where to look. The mikeroweWORKS foundation is a wonderful organization that promotes scholarships and training for those willing to work in skilled trades that are hurting for people.

Those fucking lazy poor people really frost my cupcakes too. Skiiled trades. Let us talk about them.

Because the person who is laid off at say 50, is going to spend 4 years leaning a new trade, to apply for a job they won't get hired for because they are "too old"? Because the person laid off from their factory job will just become an investment broker or open a machine shop?

I like Mike Rowe a lot, and agree with his idea that the blue collar workers don't get the respect they deserve.

But there is an elephant in this room.

You are not going to just plug in anyone anywhere. Isn't going to happen. Some people can make fundamental shifts in what they do, others cannot. I can and have. I've been a lifeguard, a cable TV technician, a linesman, a printed circuit manufacturer, a Digital programmer, a photographer, a videographer, and computer support to Suits. I'm the person who shifts careers as need be.

My better half, who is every bit as smart as I am, doesn't adapt as well - she's pretty much been stable in her work life.

I'd say 80 percent of people retrain only under great duress, and with very mixed success.

Thern there are the other people. Whether we want to admit it or not, a whole lot of people are just not cut out to do much that is complicated. They just aren't. But they need to support themselves.

Unless you want to support them through socialist programs, or remove them from the food chain, that is.

It's always amusing to see these people who are against raising the minimum wage justify their claims by saying that it will decrease jobs. For one, there is no evidence of that, only primitive debunked economic theory.

If you want to really see the effects of minimum wage, you should look at teenage workers. Teenage workers tend to be the most untrained, and therefore, the workers most affected by changes in the minimum. When you look at the effects of the minimum wage on teenage unemployment, the evidence is absolutely damning: In both the UK and New Zealand, teen unemployment rose strongly after a teen minimum wage was introduced.

Now, if you want to argue that teenage workers should be unemployed, go ahead. But if you're willing to admit that the minimum wage increases teenage unemployment, then you're going to have to do some serious mental gymnastics to believe that the minimum wage does not have any negative effects on those members of society who are older, but also relatively unskilled and/or untrained. The study referenced by slashdot proves nothing, because it is focused on the general unemployment rate, rather than the unemployment rate of the least productive members of society.

Strip mines do get returned to grade and much faster than exclusion zones can be re-inhabited. So, you don't really have a point here. Turns out Germany is managing much butter than Japan. http://www.forbes.com/sites/am...

I'm sick and tired of the notion that it's OK to pollute, as long as you don't pollute "too much."

200+ chemicals found in samples of people's blood: http://www.forbes.com/2010/01/...

200+ chemicals found in newborn's umbilical core blood: http://www.scientificamerican....

http://www.cdc.gov/exposurerep...

These chemicals by and large don't go away...and time after time, we find chemicals that were thought to be "safe"...aren't. When are we going to learn that? When are we going to require chemicals be considered dangerous until proven otherwise, instead of the present situation, where chemicals are only later shown to be dangerous once scientists and environmental groups collect a mountain of evidence?

What's even worse is when some insurance company publishes a scare article to Forbes' advertisement program, which publishes stories under the Forbes umbrella while vaguely disassociating themselves from the content. The content looks like it's Forbes. It's really sick. Here's an example.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jo...

Quote from the article
"But what that analysis also told me was that 61 percent of people who earn $250,000 or more aren’t buying luxury brands at all. They’re buying the same Toyotas, Hondas and Fords as the rest of us. So what cars are preferred by the rich?"

http://www.forbes.com/global20...

Apple is the #15 largest company in the world. Microsoft is #32.

Apple has $160 billion of CASH on hand. Microsoft's total assets, all of their real estate, etc is $150 billion.

So how have they "almost lost" to Apple? And at what point is that defined? Have they "lost" when they have run out of money? Or have no marketshare? Of the millions of companies over the world you are supporting the assertion that one has "almost lost" to another when they are separated by just 17 places in the calculated size. When Microsoft bought $150 million of Apple stock back in the 90s people were saying the same thing about Apple and there was a LOT more disparity in wealth and marketshare in all markets that they both participated in between them at that time. Anybody who knows the history of the tech industry knows it's the height of naivety to declare that a company has "lost" to another until they are completely out of the market.

http://www.forbes.com/global20...

Apple is the #15 largest company in the world. Microsoft is #32.

Apple has $160 billion of CASH on hand. Microsoft's total assets, all of their real estate, etc is $150 billion.

Most CEO's and Executive Level types are sociopaths.

Perhaps not "Most CEO's", but the position tends to attract them: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ke...

You make it sound like no-one thought of changes in demographics before now. The SS trust fund has always had assumptions about longevity built in. And the US is not outside of that predicted range (actually a little under, IIRC.)

I don't know how I made it sound anything of the sort. I simply commented on the life expectancy difference between dates.

The problems with the SS trust fund are purely due to the artificial contributions cap combined with the decline in median household income relative to GDP. The planners didn't expect to lose the gains in income equality over the prior to the '80s. (If the national income is more concentrated at the top end, and you exclude the top end from contributing....)

That's not the problem at all. Income inequality has little to do with it. Unemployment is rampant which hurts the basic premise of the social security schema. Add to that the problem of a somewhat negative population growth and it throws it all out of whack.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/da...

You see, the planners forecast population growth and the idea was that about 80% of the working population would pay for around 15% in social security benefits. I left 5% off because there will be some eligible to draw benefits but continue to work and end up paying their allotment back in penalties. But when you have a boom in population growth and then it slows, you end up with 25% or better of the population being over the age of retirement (in 2010, there was something like 20.7% of 65 and over compared to 18-64 with roughly 8% under 18 compared to the same source and another 41.9% coming.)

Or in other words, currently, the number of people 65 and over is equal to 20.7% of people of working age. The number of people under 18 year old who will replace the retiring workers is equal to roughly 8% of the current working age population. But the number of people within 18 years of being 65 is roughly 42% of the current working population. this means that 42% will leave while only 8% replaces them leaving a deficit of 34% without bothering to estimate the number of retirees who will still be with us and dependent on Social Security or the number of working age people and others who had tragic events happen and draw from the system too..

http://factfinder2.census.gov/...

But I like you try to push income inequality as a leading factor. It shows you are willing to make something up to push the idea and I bet people believed you too.

Eat at McDonalds next time and mind the coffee! It's hot.

No, don't eat at McDonald's in France. Apparently it's perfectly legal for restaurant employees to physicall assault you there:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/an...

I think I'll just avoid France and go over to Germany, where they don't seem to have all these problems.

Being a car mechanic is more dangerous that being a fireman.

Top 10 deadliest jobs:
1. Logging workers
2. Fishers and related fishing workers
3. Aircraft pilot and flight engineers
4. Roofers
5. Structural iron and steel workers
6. Refuse and recyclable material collectors
7. Electrical power-line installers and repairers
8. Drivers/sales workers and truck drivers
9. Farmers, ranchers, and other agricultural managers
10. Construction laborers

Source:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja...

Commuting to work every day is more dangerous than being a fireman.

Ask for $8 million, get $1 million.

Maybe The Oatmeal should take a cue from the guy who started a $10 campaign for potato salad on Kickstarter. He seems to get a pretty good return on his requests.

Evidence of business attempting to censor: The perils of posting scathing reviews on Yelp and Angie's List

Evidence that business lies: Cable industry finally admits that data caps have nothing to do with congestion.

US capitalism was still using slavery when it started to take off. US technology won World War II. What business would invest in computers or the nuclear bomb? Government did, because business was too short-sighted and focused on immediate profits.

Business's idea of the internet was Prodigy and Compuserve.

Government nourished the computer industry by ordering chips for TI during the 1960s, when hardly anyone else was.

I've worked for big corporations, I've worked for small businesses. The ability to make small talk, chat up the boss, and scapegoat trumped any technical skills. One boss used to "spin the fickle finger of blame" when a project overran its budget.

I'd like to get involved in government. I email representatives, sometimes getting replies. Maybe I will go to some public meetings.

Actually, it looks like this: https://wattsupwiththat.files....

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja...

Yes the CO2 levels increased. Yet the global average temperature did not rise as predicted by the AGW model.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/la...
http://www.nature.com/news/cli...

Great bit. Compare and contrast: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/07/26/smart-homes-hack/

It's a fact that coal plants pollute and those pollutants result in increases of disease and a decrease of the health of a population downwind.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja...

There's my citation. Maybe you'd care to share yours?

What is the problem we are solving again?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja...

Not that "climate change" is homogeneous and 10 years does not centuries make, but currently from a notorious yellow rag: NOAA's most accurate, up-to-date temperature data confirm the United States has been cooling for at least the past decade. "Temperatures in North Dakota falling for the past 10yrs is not relevant. " But this is NA, a slightly larger land area than ND.

I think the GP is arguing about extrapolation of the data to fill in missing gaps. And while I completely agree that "dumping crap into our atmosphere is a bad thing", the devil is in the details.

They think that a million smokestacks is enough, I think that a thousand of them is enough, you think that only one is enough. So how many are built? What point on the gradient is right?

Oh, and I like and believe in science too. But at a certain point you seem to have made up your mind (quote: Contradictions? No, "It's dead on."), blame the dumb and evil groups trying to stop you and come across as these guys. They were 100% convinced too, you know, with a literal evil guy trying to stop them.

Not that they're not bad and misleading groups out there. And to slightly mis-quote you: "climate data is HARD to deal with." So how do you know that you (they) have gotten it right? After all: men won't live through the high 15mph speeds of trains, bumblebees and men can't fly, and man will never go to the moon.

Models are wanna-be theory implementations, but this one is slightly wrong.

Quoting from elsewhere in this thread: "That is why there are so many people who choose ignorance and belief over reason and fact." And I'm sure the End of the World people above used those exact words too.

Down here in the bible belt (sigh) there's a saying; "God did it; I believe it; That settles it." As opposed to the other funnier saying: "My mind's made up, don't confuse me with the facts." Those match this current discussion When Beliefs and Facts Collide.

Finally, to end this rambling, no matter which side of of the fence you're on (fences only have 2 sides, right -- black and white, right and wrong, "yer with me or agin me"), this is just wrong: forced to step down after subjected to 'Mc-Carthy'-style pressure from scientists around the world.

Just because you want to present a debunked theory doesn't mean you should be shouted down -- it ought to be easy to refute their (new?) arguments. And if not -- why, that's even better! Science works by correcting incorrect "facts" no matter how widespread they're known.

Story

The "just is" a fact, is in fact just made up. Many of those quoted scientists never agreed with such statements and have had their name used without their permission. I can also make a list of 97% of climate scientist and say that those 97% disagree and be just as factual.

So like was stated before, that is a political statement, and is far from fact. The more you all use it the more is shows how far from reality your arguments are.

story
When I tried to look up that 97%, as everytime a liberal makes a specific claim I try and look it up, the FIRST thing I found was above. Many of those 97% did not agree, their names were used without their permission.

So, the 97% is an outright lie. Every other specific AGW claim I've heard made and looked up has also been an outright lie. If it is true, you would think they wouldn't have to make up their "facts", but I'm tending to not believe just because of how much they need to.

What industry are you in, because in the games industry that is the norm.

Besides switching jobs is the only way to consistently get a raise.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ca...

The majority of car accidents are caused by human error.

True.

Specifically the error of thinking "I am not drunk."

Demonstrably false. The majority of auto accidents in no way involve alcohol. That's not to say the number of alcohol related incidents is insignificant but it clearly is not the majority.

First there will be test runs. When the test runs do not have car accidents, taxi companies will start using them.

That is a HUGE assumption. One that is entirely unsubstantiated at this time. You are presuming that automated vehicles can be programmed to navigate real world conditions with zero errors or unexpected conditions or human interference. In the real world accidents will happen simply because there will be times and conditions that the vehicles cannot accommodate for.

Then suddenly, car insurance rates will drop to almost nothing - if the car is computer controlled.

Ha! Let me guess, you aren't an actuary are you? There is more to auto insurance than collision insurance. Even if you are correct and accidents by some miracle dropped to a good approximation of zero, you still have theft, liability, incidental damage, etc. I'm optimistic that computer aided/controlled driving can reduce accidents but enough to cause car insurance rates to drop to "nothing"? Not in my lifetime I think and going by the averages I have a good 40 years or so left.

The whole process should take less than ten years from the introduction of the first commercially available 'no need to have a driver's license car', till the majority of new cars sold being computer controlled.

And which orifice did you pull that "ten years" number from? That's a pretty bold claim and I'm pretty sure you can't back it up. First off the average time people in the US own a car is now almost 11 years. That's the AVERAGE meaning roughly half keep their cars longer than that. An expensive and unproven new driving technology isn't going to cause a precipitous decline in time of ownership on the second most expensive asset most people own, no matter how much it drops insurance rates.

The whole purpose, for the US government’s perspective, is to intimately experience the day-to-day lives of residents while learning about Cuban cultural, social and religious organizations firsthand. For this reason, all participants are required to adhere to the approved full-time schedule of activities – beg off to relax by the hotel pool and OFAC could pull the company’s license.

So there are restrictions: you have to travel with a tour guide, and your trip agenda has to be filled with culturally-relevant activities rather than just random tourist stuff. It wasn't clear from TFA if Schmidt's visit was under this particular license, but his trip agenda ("to get a tour of Cuba’s University of Information Sciences in Havana and discuss life within the country") certainly sounded like it would have qualified.

Let's correct a few things for you here...

We ignore the law

Correction... Businesses ignore the law when they hire the illegals. The state of Georgia implemented the strictest sanctions on employers of illegal immigrants and the end result was was a huge failure! ( http://www.forbes.com/sites/re... ). And where were the so called "American workers" to take up the slack? Well, let's just quote that article:

Despite high unemployment in the state, most Georgians don't want such back-breaking jobs, nor do they have the necessary skills. According to Dick Minor, president of the Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Grower's Association, immigrants "are pretty much professional harvesters" with many specializing in particular crops.

To even further disillusion you:

Georgia's experience is consistent with economic research on immigration. Although many Americans believe immigrants "steal" our jobs and push down our wages, economists find little evidence of that.

Immigration policy is designed to control the entry of immigrants, it's time we started treating that way.

They are trying to do that with modifications to a law that really, really needs fixing. The example of Georgia shows that isolation such as you are proposing doesn't work and in fact leads to economic harm. So exactly what would you propose? Would you work in the fields to enforce your vision when the immigrants all leave?

Homeland Security will jump on this as the perfect opportunity to build a prison large enough to hold us.

Already been done, at least in the movies.

Escape from L.A.
Escape from New York

That, of course, pubs all of the criminals behind walls, leaving the innocent people outside. And now a slight change of topic: did you know there are so many laws that everyone is guilty of something.

...what an interesting coincidence.

And tightening down the straps on my way too-thin tinfoil cap here, having a humongously-long wall would be handy to use as a backstop for all of the bullets Homeland Security has purchased. The question is: who are they going to put with their back to it?

Or do they really expect Titans to break through?

Are you fucking kidding me?
"Nuclear is a stopgap" and "not poisoning the world for future generations"?

You know how many people have died over the past 60-odd years from radiation poisoning? Direct deaths, including incidents like assassinations and laboratory accidents? 10,000, maybe? Nope. 5000? Nigga we ain't even close yet. 1000? Keep going. 500? Hahaha, get real buddy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Over 60 years of nuclear power and widespread use of radioactive material and there are less than 400 (estimate 200-300) deaths from direct radiation exposure. You can bump it up to ~10,000-20,000 when you include estimates on cancer related deaths. But you know what? If we're going to count cancer related deaths for nuclear, then how about we count pollution related deaths for coal, oil and gas?

Think you can guess? Maybe 100,000 per year?
Try 7 million: http://www.who.int/mediacentre...

Even if you went batshit crazy with estimating nuclear's impact - with crazy greenpeace numbers like a million deaths that they pull out of their collective asses. You still come NOWHERE NEAR coal, oil or gas. In fact, by metrics like amount of power produced per death, Nuclear is the safest we have available. Nothing else beats it, including Solar, Wind and Hydro.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja...
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/...
http://motherboard.vice.com/en...

Enough with your bullshit FUD. There is nothing wrong with, and there has never been anything wrong with Nuclear. All the facts are stacked against you and all you've brought against it are lies and bullshit fearmongering to convince people who are ignorant of what the nuclear statistics actually look like. I'm fucking sick and tired of you anti-nuclear liars. All you do is help ensure we keep guzzling oil, coal and gas. I don't think the oil industries could've gotten better shills if they paid for them.

"Now" is misleading when the article is 2 years old?

lol :D

Oh well, more recently they hit 74% with all renewable energy combined:
http://thinkprogress.org/clima...

Maybe the 50% is correct for this year or other pages have just picked up the hype and not checked the sources or noticed the dates either.
http://www.thelocal.de/2014061...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/qu...

Did I Fucking Love Science got it wrong?
http://www.iflscience.com/tech...

More 2012:
http://www.marketwatch.com/sto...
I can't see a year here:
http://theweek.com/speedreads/...

Anyway, even if it has happened recently too it's less impressive when it has already been done more than 2 years ago..

It may nor be socialist, but one of the biggest problems is Obamacare.

Yup, a lot of the ideas came from that big socialist left-wing think tank the Heritage Foundation.

It absolutely kills small businesses.

So maybe MOAR SOCIALISM would help here.

Please provide a single scientific proof of anything Al Gore ever accomplished?

OTOH:

Blood And Gore: Making A Killing On Anti-Carbon Investment Hype

Al Gore invests millions to make billions in cap-and-trade software

Al Gore Invests $6M To Make BILLIONS In Cap And Trade

Gore lies to Congress about personal finances

Gore’s Dual Role: Advocate and Investor

The Money and Connections Behind Al Gore’s Carbon Crusade

Al Gore pushes Global Warming for personal profit

Cyber-Thieves Make Millions from Emissions Cap-and-Trade Scam

Obama's draft budget projects cap-and-trade revenue

Cap-and-trade: The biggest scam of all

Experts: Carbon Tax needed and NOT Cap-and-Trade Emission Trading Scheme (ETS)

Leading Global Warming Crusader: Cap and Trade May INCREASE CO2 Emissions

Cap-and-Trade's Unlikely Critics: Its Creators

Fraud in Europe's Cap and Trade System a 'Red Flag,' Critics Say

Spending Cap and Trade Auction Revenues Will Undermine California’s Climate Goals

Yet LFTR get's pooh poohed because it's experimental. Amazing.

You say "what you're worth" as though it's an absolute value like the price of gold.

Even the price of gold isn't absolute, it's traded just like labor or anything else that can be bought and sold or as Adam Smith observed, "Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it."

shaped by the belief that if a 10-year old kid can write a "pong" game, then a 10-year old kid can deliver an enterprise-grade complex web application. Especially if they can make it pretty, even if the backend part is an unstable pile of crap.

The ObamaCare website being a prime recent example of this. The contractors and subs pocketed all of the money and hired the actual work out to the cheapest body shops that they could find. The taxpayers got stuck with both the mess and the bill. Incidentally, this kind of crap is why socialized medicine sucks but unfortunately it doesn't become clear to the masses until they've actually experienced it. It's funny how just about everyone who raves about the European style socialized medicine is an American who hasn't actually lived under that system. The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence it seems.

Do you have any CONCEPT on what it will cost to charge that Tesla and what the restrictions on charging it will be after all the coal plants shut down in response to Obama's new EPA rules???? Hint: we get over 40% of our electricity from coal.

Take away 40% of the Electricity and what's left will have to be rationed with priorites for hospitals, refrigeration, etc (and of course GOVERNMENT, which when taken together (local,state+fed) is the biggest consumer and will put itself first)...[snip

You really don't know what you're talking about, do you? Even Forbes (hardly a bastion of the American Left) doesn't think anything of the sort. From the linked article:

Don’t believe the hype that these new EPA rules will destroy the economy or send electricity prices sky high. Back in the 1990s the EPA introduced rules to stop acid rain by slashing the emission of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide. Critics thought it couldn’t be done, but ingenious engineers came up with new and better ways to scrub the pollutants out of the smokestacks. Andrew Weissman, senior energy advisor at law firm Haynes Boone, says that a key to getting rid of acid rain a generation ago was the creation of a cap-and-trade program for those emissions. Weissman, who helped pioneer emissions trading in the 1990s says that a national trading program is “a proven mechanism to use the full force of competitive markets to drive down costs” while avoiding disruptions to the power grid.[Emphasis added]

Sigh. Some people will believe anything as long as it fits with their existing bias.