"Hierarchical model of masters and servants has been discredited long ago... an economy that treats people as a machines who's qualities superfluous to their current task must be suppressed or at least hidden is going to be hopelessly outmatched by any who don't."
As long as you live in an economy of scarcity that's the way it's going to be. Change that to an economy of abundance, and THEN everything changes. If you can figure out a way to do that, more power to you. But fantasizing about it probably isn't helping.
Above all, I think they need to remember they are employees.
Eich's beliefs mean nothing, as long as he doesn't practice them at work. Just as the employee's sexual orientation means nothing, as long as he doesn't practice it at work.
A lot of people today need to pull their noses out of everybody else's asses, and everybody else's business, and start living their own lives for a change.
And yes, if an employee of mine made public comments about not wanting me as CEO because of my politics, I would show him the door in an instant. He could take his stuff home with him right then, and not come back... just wait to get his final paycheck in the mail.
That's not discrimination... that's just low tolerance for bullshit. It has nothing to do with the employee's own politics. Only with the fact that he was objecting -- publicly -- ABOUT his boss's politics, whatever they happen to be.
"Under US law you have no right to the source code. "
Ahem... if Mr. Gorodish is correct, and Waze was licensed under GPLv2, then we do in fact have a right to the source code, and Google would be breaking the law by not providing it.
GPL v2:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
. . .
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License."
In this particular instance, "you" would mean Google. If, that is, Waze was GPLed.
I agree. I did not care for any of the 2 designs. Further, I have to ask: what's the purpose of decorating them at all? Especially if they're all going to be the same?
Since suits are customized for the wearer anyway, I say: let the wearer decide how to decorate the damned thing. Either that, or just put a big goddamned number on each one.
By the way: I admit to an error: it wasn't 117 models, but rather 117 simulations run on 37 models. Not that it makes that much difference.
"Even if the models are 100% wrong it's still warming."
From that paper:
"It is worth noting that the observed trend over this period [the prior 15 years is] not significantly different from zero..."
Also:
"The inconsistency between observed and simulated global warming is even more striking for temperature trends computed over the past fifteen years (1998-2012). For this period, the observed trend of 0.05 +/- 0.08 degrees C per decade is more than four times smaller than the average simulated trend of 0.21 +/- 0.03 degrees C per decade (Fig. 1b)." [emphasis added]
"the excess heat is instead going into changing the phase of the polar and glacial ice fields and permafrost zones."
After some record sea-ice extents in January and February, sea ice extents at the poles are right now completely NORMAL for this time of year. Nothing low about them at all, and they certainly aren't shrinking. Ice thickness (total inland ice mass) in antarctica has been growing steadily for years.
" Did you even read the full paper or just skim it for information to support your position?"
Several times. I have a copy of it here.
"There were a bunch of caveats in there that you totally ignore. Even if the models are 100% wrong it's still warming."
I didn't ignore anything. The whole point was that it's shitty "science". That kind of error rate would be laughed at in most fields of science... so why aren't you laughing?
"The fundamental evidence for AGW doesn't depend on climate models."
Correct. The fundamental "evidence" for AGW relies instead on flawed understanding of the physics involved. Two of those other links.
"Models are not expected to be exactly right, just useful."
Correct. And models that predict a lot of warming during a full 16 years without any, aren't very useful.
"They are tools to explore our understanding and we don't have anything else that does it better."
When they're almost all grossly inaccurate, and based on flawed assumptions, they don't help anybody understand very much.
"Not that nonsense of Pierre Latour's again."
Spencer never tried to refute Latour's actual math. Neither has anybody else. For the simple reason they know it's correct. Spencer tried to use "thought experiments" to refute Latour. Sorry, just doesn't work. Show me where his math is wrong.
"Dr. Roy Spencer is right and Latour flunks thermodynamics."
Latour designs heat-transfer control systems for a living. He did it for NASA, among other notables.
How is this "a growing trend"? I thought it was settled law by now.
For at least the last 3 years, every court case I have seen that deals with this (and there have been more than a few) has ended with the same ruling. In both state and federal court.
And no wonder: it's physical fact. My wifi does not even identify my residence, much less me. I see other people logged in all the time. (To my open guest account, that is.)
At my last place of residence, I had my router (with a great signal) open to the neighborhood there, too, and people a block away would log in. And even people driving or parked nearby with their cell phones on.
"The alternative is to have a bunch of modifier keys to do stuff. Like say, Control, Alt, Meta, Command, Option, AltGr keys that have to be held in various ways to do stuff."
False dichotomy. Another perfectly viable alternative is to have a menu. Even drop-down menus. They were being done in character-mode way back in the 80s.
"Of course since these facts go against tightly held beliefs, you will never get any "Informative" mods... You might get a Troll or two..."
I've been experiencing those for years. Hasn't stopped me yet.
Armies of Kool-Aid drinkers can indeed make things difficult at times. There is a difference, though, between these particular Kool-Aid drinkers, and those in Jonestown. In Jonestown, they were all told they were going to a higher place. In this case, they were all told that they are going to a fiery hell if they don't give government control over the very air they breathe.
In both cases, there has been a lot of harm to a lot of people.
When I see them, I have to wonder what the motivation of the writer was.
Publicly denouncing me? Not very effective; not only does it not have anything specific to say, it's a zero-point AC comment.
Just pissed off at me? Again not very effective; it's hard to tell who it is behind the AC mask. (Sometimes I can tell, but that comment left few clues.)
About the only other thing I can think of is "projection" or Dunning-Kruger. But even if it were the latter it would seem to be a rather pointless exercise.
And just in case you didn't understand the last part of my comment:
You're trying to "shoot the messenger". You're using ad-hominem arguments rather than actually refuting any scientific arguments. That's exactly the behavior I told you I would laugh at you for, and I am indeed laughing.
You might be interested to know that Anthony Watts has ALSO tried to prove Latour wrong. Because like Spencer and Singer, he believes that while AGW science may be lacking, the basic theory is still correct.
"LOL! That's quite amusing. Roy Spencer and Fred Singer are about the closest thing to climate scientists that the denial camp have. And here you are posting a rebuttal of their views on The Greenhouse Effect by yet another denier."
You are flaunting your ignorance. While Spencer is often a critic of climate science, that article was was a defense of the imagined "physics" behind greenhouse warming, used by the climate scientists to build their models.
You call me ignorant of the physics of AGW, then you prove that you know nothing of it yourself.
"To join in with the amusement, I'll simply quote Fred Singer back at you: 'Now let me turn to the deniers. One of their favorite arguments is that the greenhouse effect does not exist at all because it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics' i.e., one cannot transfer energy from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface. It is surprising that this simplistic argument is used by physicists, and even by professors who teach thermodynamics. One can show them data of down welling infrared radiation from CO2, water vapor, and clouds, which clearly impinge on the surface. But their minds are closed to any such evidence."
What is really amusing is that you don't even realize that you are arguing against yourself. Then you use ad-hominem arguments to try to "prove" your point. It won't work here.
I'll explain this to you a third time, because you seem to be rather slow on the uptake today: in that argument, Spencer is defending the concept of "back-radiation-warming" that AGW proponents use to make their models. You seem to actually get that much, because here you quote Singer saying the same thing. But note that they are both DEFENDING AGW by making that claim. Regardless of whether you think they are "deniers", they are on the side of Greenhouse Warming on this particular point.
Do you get that now? You just denounced two people who are defending the very basis of Greenhouse Warming theory. But apparently you don't get that it in fact a fundamental part of the theory. (By the way: Singer's statement that there is a lot of backwelling radiation is correct. But that was never at issue here. Nobody is denying it. The question is what that radiation is capable -- and not capable -- of doing.)
But finally, Latour shows that this idea is thermodynamically impossible. And you refute his thermodynamics with a statement that he (and I) are "cranks". That's really very funny. Even funnier when you consider that nobody else -- Spencer, or Singer or other physicists -- have actually SHOWN him to be wrong. Anybody can make claims. But in order to be credible they have to be demonstrated. That is the key here. Singer hasn't refuted Latour. He's done nothing more than make empty claims. Let's see him actually refute the math. Then I'll listen.
Has it sunk in yet that you are openly displaying every bit of the kind of behavior you have accused me of committing? That's the biggest hoot yet.
"I have no degree, no professional experience in the field, and as such, I do not hold much market value for an employer. "
To what "market value" do you refer? Your employer isn't trying to sell you. Your actual "value" is what you can do for them.
If you mean they value they perceive you have for them, prior to employment, you might have a case. But keep in mind that their perception is not always (or even very often) close to reality. Part of your job is to convince them of that.
Let me give you a concrete example: many firms that employ programmers have preferred to always get "fresh young faces" into their flock, despite study after study showing that older, more experienced programmers are usually a better value, even at a higher wage.
"... and what we've observed is the warming that was predicted. That seems to be the opposite of "totally wrong" to me."
No, it's not "the opposite of wrong"... it's just wrong. We HAVEN'T observed the warming that was predicted.
A paper in Nature last September (pdf) was a study of 117 of the most-cited CO2 climate warming models. 114 of them not only overestimated warming, the average (mean) amount they exaggerated warming (versus actual observed temperatures) was MORE THAN 100%.
The fact is, the theory of Catastrophic Greenhouse Gas Warming is just plain weak "science", and always has been. There is an awful lot of counter-evidence that you just haven't heard about because you have to actually look for it. It isn't spoon-fed to you by the government or the news.
Not to mention the truckloads of evidence that have continued to build concerning the compromised integrity of data, and its irresponsible handling by said climate scientists.
Add to that the publicly reported "statistics" that are so distorted one might even be justified in calling them fraudulent, like the bogus "97% consensus" claim.
And if you think "there has been no serious dispute" of these CO2-based warming claims, as many climate scientists and their supporters have tried to claim, you would be mistaken. That is a list of just some of the peer-reviewed papers that disagree.
There are mountains of such information out there, if you just but look. Do yourself and everyone else a favor, and be more skeptical.
"I'm not a big fan of the "social" aspect of social media. Now that there seems to be an all-out attack on RSS by publishers, Twitter is a very good way to follow news."
Twitter as an idea, and as a service, IS good. What is bad -- and what people are complaining about -- is the implementation of that idea. Twitter, the company, is just plain bad at it. Their software -- and perhaps more importantly, the interface to their software -- is downright terrible.
I can summarize the basic problem with Twitter (the company) in few words: they try to make their users do what they want, rather than they doing what their users want. It's a practice that has never worked in the long run.
(Disclaimer: by "thank Grid I don't have to", I mean I don't work for Twitter and never have. I would not work for them, because their development environment probably resembles their interfaces: an outrageous mess.
The only reason I still use TweetDeck is because Twitter managed to kill off the competing products by limiting their API calls. That's called anti-competitive Bad Business.)
Agree with MrBigInThePants. As best I can tell, Twitter's interface builders are actually some chimpanzees they borrowed from the zoo.
Like many other people, I have been using TweetDeck on the desktop for years. When it was acquired by Twitter a couple of years ago, they managed to completely mess it up.
Now, things that one used to be able to do right in a column of TweetDeck (i.e., more or less in-line), requires 4 different interfaces that pop up. Search is another (completely superfluous) interface. Direct messages no longer allow links. Seeing a larger version of someone profile picture requires you to go to their Twitter page in a web browser. Filtering a column is now a multiple-step process when it used to be just one click and type.
I could go on for ages. While the Twitter team has finally managed to restore much of the functionality of the original TweetDeck (though not all... links in DMs for just one example), what used to be a simple and elegant interface is now an outrageously wild hodgepodge of completely different interfaces that work in inconsistent ways.
TweetDeck's interface is now an usability engineer's worst nightmare. Twitter pages in the browser aren't that much better. I would be embarrassed to admit I worked for them; thank Grid I don't have to.
Where this all comes in is that Roy Spencer is defending the "back radiation" concept that Greenhouse Gas warming relies upon. The "back radiation" idea requires that cooler objects can radiatively make hotter objects even hotter. Spencer explains why he thinks this is valid. Latour shows that it is not allowed by thermodynamics.
Latour is a control engineer for chemical processes and he has designed heat-transfer systems for NASA.
"Considering the amount of money that Microsoft makes in patent licensing fees from Android I don't know how they could have any financial reason to want Android to go away. At the moment I suspect that Microsoft makes more money from Android than it does Windows Phone."
That last bit is exactly why they want Android to go away. They don't make nearly as much money on Android as they'd make if all those same phones were Windows. Every Windows phone they can sell in place of an Android phone is more money in their pockets.
Sure, they'll make money off of Android where they can. But they'd rather it simply wasn't there.
Slashdot Mirror
"Hierarchical model of masters and servants has been discredited long ago... an economy that treats people as a machines who's qualities superfluous to their current task must be suppressed or at least hidden is going to be hopelessly outmatched by any who don't."
As long as you live in an economy of scarcity that's the way it's going to be. Change that to an economy of abundance, and THEN everything changes. If you can figure out a way to do that, more power to you. But fantasizing about it probably isn't helping.
This.
Above all, I think they need to remember they are employees.
Eich's beliefs mean nothing, as long as he doesn't practice them at work. Just as the employee's sexual orientation means nothing, as long as he doesn't practice it at work.
A lot of people today need to pull their noses out of everybody else's asses, and everybody else's business, and start living their own lives for a change.
And yes, if an employee of mine made public comments about not wanting me as CEO because of my politics, I would show him the door in an instant. He could take his stuff home with him right then, and not come back... just wait to get his final paycheck in the mail.
That's not discrimination... that's just low tolerance for bullshit. It has nothing to do with the employee's own politics. Only with the fact that he was objecting -- publicly -- ABOUT his boss's politics, whatever they happen to be.
"Under US law you have no right to the source code. "
Ahem... if Mr. Gorodish is correct, and Waze was licensed under GPLv2, then we do in fact have a right to the source code, and Google would be breaking the law by not providing it.
GPL v2:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
. . .
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License."
In this particular instance, "you" would mean Google. If, that is, Waze was GPLed.
Meh. s/2/3
"None of the above."
I agree. I did not care for any of the 2 designs. Further, I have to ask: what's the purpose of decorating them at all? Especially if they're all going to be the same?
Since suits are customized for the wearer anyway, I say: let the wearer decide how to decorate the damned thing. Either that, or just put a big goddamned number on each one.
"Even if the models are 100% wrong it's still warming."
From that paper:
"It is worth noting that the observed trend over this period [the prior 15 years is] not significantly different from zero..."
Also:
"The inconsistency between observed and simulated global warming is even more striking for temperature trends computed over the past fifteen years (1998-2012). For this period, the observed trend of 0.05 +/- 0.08 degrees C per decade is more than four times smaller than the average simulated trend of 0.21 +/- 0.03 degrees C per decade (Fig. 1b)." [emphasis added]
"the excess heat is instead going into changing the phase of the polar and glacial ice fields and permafrost zones."
After some record sea-ice extents in January and February, sea ice extents at the poles are right now completely NORMAL for this time of year. Nothing low about them at all, and they certainly aren't shrinking. Ice thickness (total inland ice mass) in antarctica has been growing steadily for years.
" Did you even read the full paper or just skim it for information to support your position?"
Several times. I have a copy of it here.
"There were a bunch of caveats in there that you totally ignore. Even if the models are 100% wrong it's still warming."
I didn't ignore anything. The whole point was that it's shitty "science". That kind of error rate would be laughed at in most fields of science... so why aren't you laughing?
"The fundamental evidence for AGW doesn't depend on climate models."
Correct. The fundamental "evidence" for AGW relies instead on flawed understanding of the physics involved. Two of those other links.
"Models are not expected to be exactly right, just useful."
Correct. And models that predict a lot of warming during a full 16 years without any, aren't very useful.
"They are tools to explore our understanding and we don't have anything else that does it better."
When they're almost all grossly inaccurate, and based on flawed assumptions, they don't help anybody understand very much.
"Not that nonsense of Pierre Latour's again."
Spencer never tried to refute Latour's actual math. Neither has anybody else. For the simple reason they know it's correct. Spencer tried to use "thought experiments" to refute Latour. Sorry, just doesn't work. Show me where his math is wrong.
"Dr. Roy Spencer is right and Latour flunks thermodynamics."
Latour designs heat-transfer control systems for a living. He did it for NASA, among other notables.
How is this "a growing trend"? I thought it was settled law by now.
For at least the last 3 years, every court case I have seen that deals with this (and there have been more than a few) has ended with the same ruling. In both state and federal court.
And no wonder: it's physical fact. My wifi does not even identify my residence, much less me. I see other people logged in all the time. (To my open guest account, that is.)
At my last place of residence, I had my router (with a great signal) open to the neighborhood there, too, and people a block away would log in. And even people driving or parked nearby with their cell phones on.
"FTFY"
Yeah, right.
I know a guy who tried to tell his girlfriend the same thing about anal sex.
"The alternative is to have a bunch of modifier keys to do stuff. Like say, Control, Alt, Meta, Command, Option, AltGr keys that have to be held in various ways to do stuff."
False dichotomy. Another perfectly viable alternative is to have a menu. Even drop-down menus. They were being done in character-mode way back in the 80s.
"Isn't a "Hole in the Ground Near Pittsburgh" that is full of government employees funny enough without resorting to rectal humor?"
To be honest, I thought they fit together rather well.
"Of course since these facts go against tightly held beliefs, you will never get any "Informative" mods... You might get a Troll or two..."
I've been experiencing those for years. Hasn't stopped me yet.
Armies of Kool-Aid drinkers can indeed make things difficult at times. There is a difference, though, between these particular Kool-Aid drinkers, and those in Jonestown. In Jonestown, they were all told they were going to a higher place. In this case, they were all told that they are going to a fiery hell if they don't give government control over the very air they breathe.
In both cases, there has been a lot of harm to a lot of people.
... about asses and holes in the ground.
"Again proving what a moron you are."
When I see them, I have to wonder what the motivation of the writer was.
Publicly denouncing me? Not very effective; not only does it not have anything specific to say, it's a zero-point AC comment.
Just pissed off at me? Again not very effective; it's hard to tell who it is behind the AC mask. (Sometimes I can tell, but that comment left few clues.)
About the only other thing I can think of is "projection" or Dunning-Kruger. But even if it were the latter it would seem to be a rather pointless exercise.
And just in case you didn't understand the last part of my comment:
You're trying to "shoot the messenger". You're using ad-hominem arguments rather than actually refuting any scientific arguments. That's exactly the behavior I told you I would laugh at you for, and I am indeed laughing.
You might be interested to know that Anthony Watts has ALSO tried to prove Latour wrong. Because like Spencer and Singer, he believes that while AGW science may be lacking, the basic theory is still correct.
Like all the others, he failed.
"LOL! That's quite amusing. Roy Spencer and Fred Singer are about the closest thing to climate scientists that the denial camp have. And here you are posting a rebuttal of their views on The Greenhouse Effect by yet another denier."
You are flaunting your ignorance. While Spencer is often a critic of climate science, that article was was a defense of the imagined "physics" behind greenhouse warming, used by the climate scientists to build their models.
You call me ignorant of the physics of AGW, then you prove that you know nothing of it yourself.
"To join in with the amusement, I'll simply quote Fred Singer back at you: 'Now let me turn to the deniers. One of their favorite arguments is that the greenhouse effect does not exist at all because it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics' i.e., one cannot transfer energy from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface. It is surprising that this simplistic argument is used by physicists, and even by professors who teach thermodynamics. One can show them data of down welling infrared radiation from CO2, water vapor, and clouds, which clearly impinge on the surface. But their minds are closed to any such evidence."
What is really amusing is that you don't even realize that you are arguing against yourself. Then you use ad-hominem arguments to try to "prove" your point. It won't work here.
I'll explain this to you a third time, because you seem to be rather slow on the uptake today: in that argument, Spencer is defending the concept of "back-radiation-warming" that AGW proponents use to make their models. You seem to actually get that much, because here you quote Singer saying the same thing. But note that they are both DEFENDING AGW by making that claim. Regardless of whether you think they are "deniers", they are on the side of Greenhouse Warming on this particular point.
Do you get that now? You just denounced two people who are defending the very basis of Greenhouse Warming theory. But apparently you don't get that it in fact a fundamental part of the theory. (By the way: Singer's statement that there is a lot of backwelling radiation is correct. But that was never at issue here. Nobody is denying it. The question is what that radiation is capable -- and not capable -- of doing.)
But finally, Latour shows that this idea is thermodynamically impossible. And you refute his thermodynamics with a statement that he (and I) are "cranks". That's really very funny. Even funnier when you consider that nobody else -- Spencer, or Singer or other physicists -- have actually SHOWN him to be wrong. Anybody can make claims. But in order to be credible they have to be demonstrated. That is the key here. Singer hasn't refuted Latour. He's done nothing more than make empty claims. Let's see him actually refute the math. Then I'll listen.
Has it sunk in yet that you are openly displaying every bit of the kind of behavior you have accused me of committing? That's the biggest hoot yet.
"I have no degree, no professional experience in the field, and as such, I do not hold much market value for an employer. "
To what "market value" do you refer? Your employer isn't trying to sell you. Your actual "value" is what you can do for them.
If you mean they value they perceive you have for them, prior to employment, you might have a case. But keep in mind that their perception is not always (or even very often) close to reality. Part of your job is to convince them of that.
Let me give you a concrete example: many firms that employ programmers have preferred to always get "fresh young faces" into their flock, despite study after study showing that older, more experienced programmers are usually a better value, even at a higher wage.
You can use things like that to your advantage.
Nope. Regardless of news stories, according to peer-reviewed studies the real numbers are quite different. See my reply to your other comment above.
"... and what we've observed is the warming that was predicted. That seems to be the opposite of "totally wrong" to me."
No, it's not "the opposite of wrong"... it's just wrong. We HAVEN'T observed the warming that was predicted.
A paper in Nature last September (pdf) was a study of 117 of the most-cited CO2 climate warming models. 114 of them not only overestimated warming, the average (mean) amount they exaggerated warming (versus actual observed temperatures) was MORE THAN 100%.
And if you think that is somehow an anomaly, I assure you it isn't. The climate hasn't "warmed" in at least 16 years. AGW-proponent climate scientists publicly admit that they have no idea why.The reason is simple: their theory is fundamentally flawed.
The fact is, the theory of Catastrophic Greenhouse Gas Warming is just plain weak "science", and always has been. There is an awful lot of counter-evidence that you just haven't heard about because you have to actually look for it. It isn't spoon-fed to you by the government or the news.
Not to mention the truckloads of evidence that have continued to build concerning the compromised integrity of data, and its irresponsible handling by said climate scientists.
Add to that the publicly reported "statistics" that are so distorted one might even be justified in calling them fraudulent, like the bogus "97% consensus" claim.
And if you think "there has been no serious dispute" of these CO2-based warming claims, as many climate scientists and their supporters have tried to claim, you would be mistaken. That is a list of just some of the peer-reviewed papers that disagree.
There are mountains of such information out there, if you just but look. Do yourself and everyone else a favor, and be more skeptical.
"I'm not a big fan of the "social" aspect of social media. Now that there seems to be an all-out attack on RSS by publishers, Twitter is a very good way to follow news."
Twitter as an idea, and as a service, IS good. What is bad -- and what people are complaining about -- is the implementation of that idea. Twitter, the company, is just plain bad at it. Their software -- and perhaps more importantly, the interface to their software -- is downright terrible.
I can summarize the basic problem with Twitter (the company) in few words: they try to make their users do what they want, rather than they doing what their users want. It's a practice that has never worked in the long run.
(Disclaimer: by "thank Grid I don't have to", I mean I don't work for Twitter and never have. I would not work for them, because their development environment probably resembles their interfaces: an outrageous mess.
The only reason I still use TweetDeck is because Twitter managed to kill off the competing products by limiting their API calls. That's called anti-competitive Bad Business.)
Agree with MrBigInThePants. As best I can tell, Twitter's interface builders are actually some chimpanzees they borrowed from the zoo.
Like many other people, I have been using TweetDeck on the desktop for years. When it was acquired by Twitter a couple of years ago, they managed to completely mess it up.
Now, things that one used to be able to do right in a column of TweetDeck (i.e., more or less in-line), requires 4 different interfaces that pop up. Search is another (completely superfluous) interface. Direct messages no longer allow links. Seeing a larger version of someone profile picture requires you to go to their Twitter page in a web browser. Filtering a column is now a multiple-step process when it used to be just one click and type.
I could go on for ages. While the Twitter team has finally managed to restore much of the functionality of the original TweetDeck (though not all... links in DMs for just one example), what used to be a simple and elegant interface is now an outrageously wild hodgepodge of completely different interfaces that work in inconsistent ways.
TweetDeck's interface is now an usability engineer's worst nightmare. Twitter pages in the browser aren't that much better. I would be embarrassed to admit I worked for them; thank Grid I don't have to.
Addendum:
I notice that Pierre Latour's "No, Virginia" no longer has a direct link to the article he is refuting, so I am providing a link to it here.
My suggestion would be to read Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still before you read Latour's "No, Virginia..." piece. Simply because the latter is a rebuttal of the former.
Where this all comes in is that Roy Spencer is defending the "back radiation" concept that Greenhouse Gas warming relies upon. The "back radiation" idea requires that cooler objects can radiatively make hotter objects even hotter. Spencer explains why he thinks this is valid. Latour shows that it is not allowed by thermodynamics.
Latour is a control engineer for chemical processes and he has designed heat-transfer systems for NASA.
"Considering the amount of money that Microsoft makes in patent licensing fees from Android I don't know how they could have any financial reason to want Android to go away. At the moment I suspect that Microsoft makes more money from Android than it does Windows Phone."
That last bit is exactly why they want Android to go away. They don't make nearly as much money on Android as they'd make if all those same phones were Windows. Every Windows phone they can sell in place of an Android phone is more money in their pockets.
Sure, they'll make money off of Android where they can. But they'd rather it simply wasn't there.