No. The amount of apps you store would not affect the amount of RAM and vice versa, which is what you seem to imply in your post.
the phone-storage RAM (192 MB) is a critical resource shared across operational and storage functions, so that the phone works terribly if you have too many apps
... but it _is_ what the article (essay?) asks for. Encryption, installed by default (practically - Apple says it makes me more secure!), on a lot of computers without the users presumingly having sought it out to hide illegal stuff.
Maybe you were lucky to get a bigger harddrive, maybe you bought it of somebody who then claimed it to be a model it wasn't. It seems to have happened to someone at least:
I've never heard of anyone buying a PS3 and not knowing the capabilities. Actually, it was very well advertised when they had it and very up front about not having it.
I've been a subscriber to SA for... a decade or so I believe. I switched to the digital version a few years back (pdf, read it on my mobile) and while I have issues with the "oh noes global warming climate changing whatever EARTH IS DYING" articles the rest are pretty ok. It's quite seldom US specific, although sometimes around elections it gets a bit boring.
Checking through some of the latest pdfs indicates it's around 75 pages in each issue - but I didn't exclude ads then.
Since you do not know his data is unreliable your position falls on your own words;) Seriously, what are you doing?
(If you're interested, you might want to look into the tests that have been proposed to see whether we're in a simulation or not. Hey, I think this was even covered on Slashdot...;) http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/04/1555201 )
Who talked about faking? Being bad at statistics (which it seems Mann is) will also result in the wrong conclusions being reached.
To say that there's a scientific consensus on AGW is just false however, and when you hear it you should ask yourself why that person doesn't want real science being done.
Where did I say arxiv was peer reviewed? It was published in International Journal of Modern Physics. If you want to refute the conclusions I'm afraid your own anecdotes won't do - but I guess you didn't read it at all.
(And no, you're still wrong on observed. Since you claimed it I suggest you source it)
Why are you afraid of the fact that the AGW hypothesis isn't set in stone?
Peer reviewed physics paper on CO2 forcing, have fun!:)
A. there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, B. there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, C. the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, D. the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, E. the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, F. thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.
I'm assuming you know that what you wrote isn't true - so why did you write it?
There's lots of peer reviewed science contradicting the IPCC reports (which is not surprising, there have been some reports published in recent years that the IPCC haven't bothered to look at yet) - if you're really interested in the subject you would know about it:)
In reality it's likely that there's _no_ additional forcing from CO2 at the moment;) You might want to send me a link to something else than a discussion forum where I don't even know which post you feel is interesting.
When it comes to AGW nothing is observed. It's all just models.
Oh, and since we know for a fact that CO2 traps heat, you also need to explain why increased CO2 levels *aren't* causing any warming... because only the first 20 to 80 ppm or so are really noticeable, since CO2 absorption is logaritmic.
Slashdot Mirror
You are mistaken. Maybe you're just running too much in the background (which is different from having many applications stored)
If the amount of available RAM would decrease much below 192MB total you would not be able to start new applications at all ;)
http://forums.androidandme.com/topic/how-much-free-memory-is-good
No. The amount of apps you store would not affect the amount of RAM and vice versa, which is what you seem to imply in your post.
the phone-storage RAM (192 MB) is a critical resource shared across operational and storage functions, so that the phone works terribly if you have too many apps
vs
Memory 192 MB DDR SDRAM 256 MB Flash
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTC_Dream
You seem to be confusing RAM and internal flash storage.
Type "define sic" into the nearest google search box.
"i.e." should be used after a statement to explain it another way
Remove the [sic]
http://askville.amazon.com/define-correct-usage/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=5300847
and we are not at 1% of its capacity
Uh. First, define what you mean with the brain's capacity, then source that number ..
... but it _is_ what the article (essay?) asks for. Encryption, installed by default (practically - Apple says it makes me more secure!), on a lot of computers without the users presumingly having sought it out to hide illegal stuff.
You have the 40GB model. Two USB ports etc is another dead giveaway.
http://playstation.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/playstation.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=232&p_sid=u1F*a*qj
Maybe you were lucky to get a bigger harddrive, maybe you bought it of somebody who then claimed it to be a model it wasn't. It seems to have happened to someone at least:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090220194654AAIWEMn
Blaming Sony, however, is just stupid.
If you have a 60GB model then it has BC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3#Models
Several claims in this thread :) Going by fanboyism, that doesn't say much.
Please let me know what you would spell all that "significant time" on btw. Choosing hard drive size ... ?
I've never heard of anyone buying a PS3 and not knowing the capabilities. Actually, it was very well advertised when they had it and very up front about not having it.
Sour grapes.
"I agree - Sony advertised PS2 emulation capability but they've removed it"
What?
All the models that Sony said could play PS2 can do so. The models that cannot have never had any ads saying they could.
Let's fact check your post.
1) Population has increased lots and lots - true
2) Technology has made the world a better place for more people than ever before - true
3) Your post - false
I've been a subscriber to SA for ... a decade or so I believe. I switched to the digital version a few years back (pdf, read it on my mobile) and while I have issues with the "oh noes global warming climate changing whatever EARTH IS DYING" articles the rest are pretty ok. It's quite seldom US specific, although sometimes around elections it gets a bit boring.
Checking through some of the latest pdfs indicates it's around 75 pages in each issue - but I didn't exclude ads then.
"other races"
?
... you shouldn't use latin expressions you obviously do not know the meaning of ;)
Since you do not know his data is unreliable your position falls on your own words ;) Seriously, what are you doing?
(If you're interested, you might want to look into the tests that have been proposed to see whether we're in a simulation or not. Hey, I think this was even covered on Slashdot ... ;) http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/04/1555201 )
Who talked about faking? Being bad at statistics (which it seems Mann is) will also result in the wrong conclusions being reached.
To say that there's a scientific consensus on AGW is just false however, and when you hear it you should ask yourself why that person doesn't want real science being done.
In science you do not need an alternative theory to falsify a hypothesis :)
Where did I say arxiv was peer reviewed? It was published in International Journal of Modern Physics. If you want to refute the conclusions I'm afraid your own anecdotes won't do - but I guess you didn't read it at all.
(And no, you're still wrong on observed. Since you claimed it I suggest you source it)
Why are you afraid of the fact that the AGW hypothesis isn't set in stone?
I think there's something wrong with your eyesight :)
Peer reviewed physics paper on CO2 forcing, have fun! :)
A. there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, B. there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, C. the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, D. the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, E. the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, F. thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0707.1161
You're still wrong on "observed" btw, feel free to support your claim.
I'm assuming you know that what you wrote isn't true - so why did you write it?
There's lots of peer reviewed science contradicting the IPCC reports (which is not surprising, there have been some reports published in recent years that the IPCC haven't bothered to look at yet) - if you're really interested in the subject you would know about it :)
http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2008/04/peer-reviewed-articles-skeptical-of-man.html
(I did not compile the list, but I scrolled through it and recognised many of the entries. It seems valid)
In reality it's likely that there's _no_ additional forcing from CO2 at the moment ;) You might want to send me a link to something else than a discussion forum where I don't even know which post you feel is interesting.
When it comes to AGW nothing is observed. It's all just models.
Oh, and since we know for a fact that CO2 traps heat, you also need to explain why increased CO2 levels *aren't* causing any warming ... because only the first 20 to 80 ppm or so are really noticeable, since CO2 absorption is logaritmic.
http://brneurosci.org/temperatures6.png