People keep defending the CRU keeping its data secret by saying "No one is going to release their data before they have published." The problem is the CRU has published and wants the governments of the world to spend trillions of dollars based on their conclusions, but still doesn't want to release their data.
The data that everyone keeps asking for is the data behind published papers.
So, nice straw man.
Whne you start publishing and demanding that trillions of dollars be spent based on the results of your research is when that data had better be released to the public for anyone to analyze as they like. If you want to spend my money, I want to know that your conclusions are based on the evidence, as interpreted by a third party.
Your list doesn't even come close to Obama's history of insulting US allies, pushing a massive economic stimulus bill that didn't stimulate the economy, pushing a "health care reform" bill whose "purpose" was to reign in insurance and pharmaceutical companies, yet is more strongly supported by those industries than any other group in the country.
As I asked in another post, upon what do you base such a low opinion of Sarah Palin? The current occupant of the White House has never demonstrated competence at anything other than running for office.
Upon what do you base your opinion that Sarah Palin is incompetent to be President? (NOTE: I am not saying she is competent to be President because I do not know). I do not see how she could be less competent than the current resident of the White House.
Wow, the number of distractive (e.g. straw-man) fallacies in that little comment, is astonishing. ^^
He specifically talks about handheld devices “not bigger than a [wrist]watch“ (last paragraph of the first column), used for communication. Which is exactly what mobile phones are. The BlackBerry that was stated in the title of the/. story, is a mobile phone. QED.
Really, I didn't realize that Blackberrys could be used as communication devices when they were thousands of miles from the nearest cell tower (which he also talks about in the article).
Really, you have a communication device powered by over the air electricity? That can communicate with people all over the world, even when it is thousands of miles from the nearest cell tower and is small enough that you could conceivably wear it as a watch?
You don't understand, these are the basic indoctrination classes, if the students miss these the whole indoctrination program might fail. What would we do as a country if we have university graduates who think for themselves and don't automatically buy whatever the current Democratic Party line is?
Facetiousness aside, it appears that initially it will be used only for core curriculum classes that most students could pass by showing up for class only on test days and taking the tests (and completing whatever other assignements are handed out). When I was in college I discovered that any class that included attendance as part of the grade had no content that I needed to learn in order to fulfill requirements to pass the class (additionally, the class discussion would be so boring that it provided no motivation for being there either).
You do know that the Republicans introduced at least 4 health care reform bills (all of which were short enough to read and understand)? You do know that when the Republicans wanted to negotiate on the "stimulus bill", Obama's answer was "I won"? Further, were you aware that a national bill on education was one of George W. Bush's top priorities when he was elected (before 9/11), so he asked Ted Kennedy to write the No Child Left Behind Act (when Republicans were in the majority)?
I was reading your source, and the results of the question "Do you believe Sarah Palin is more qualified to be President than Barack Obama?" almost made me spurt my nice pineapple juice.
So, does that mean that you think Obama is qualified to be President?
Way back in the day when I was in high school I heard Tesla predicted the Internet, using exactly that quote. There's no arguing that Tesla did a lot of amazing things but he's no technological Nostradamus, no matter how much people try to shoehorn him into the role.
Actually, he is a technological Nostradamus. People are always post facto saying that Nostradamus predicted stuff that happened. However, I have yet to see someone say, "Nostradamus predicted that tomorrow (or next week, or next year) such and such would happen." And then have such and such actually happen. It's always, "Such and such happened last week (last year) and if you read this by Nostradamus you can see how he clearly predicted it."
No, I am picking at technical details. The device that Tesla predicted would look completely different from a technical standpoint than the devices we have today. He was perdicitng something that would be an offshoot of his wireless electricity distribution system. As others have pointed out, the main thing to consider before thinking his predictions were so wonderfully prescient is how many predictions did he make that have not panned out at all.
If Tesla had been a science fiction writer (similar to, say, Jules Verne) I would be willing to allow that he predicted modern cell phones (and if that is all you want to make of it, OK). But as a technical innovator, his concept of mobile communication devices is based on a completely different technical paradigm. A technical paradigm that would never have led to the devices we know today.
The fairness doctrine does not promote the availability of more viewpoints. When the fairness doctrine was enforced, broadcast shows fell into two categories. Those that avoided all divisive issues at all cost and those that presented caricatures of viewpoints opposed to that held by the producers of the show.
As a result people were left with the impression that everyone who disagreed with the view favored by those who controlled the media were nutjobs.
I believe that the problem with our curret democracy is that we have said that it is good to make it easy to vote, the easier the better. This means that I can vote whether or not I am willing to take the trouble to find out where I have to go to register to vote (just check that box when I renew my driver's license). This means that I get to vote with no effort. What makes you think I am going to bother to be an informed voter if I can only be bothered to register if I don't have to take nay additional time out of my life to do so?
Once upon a time, imposing difficulties to registering to vote were used selectively to discourage particular groups from voting and that was legitimately viewed as a negative. However, now we have a mindset that voting should be easy. Doing a good job as a voter is not easy and we need to dispel the myth that it is.
While this article quotes Tesla predicting wireless technology, it is not very similar to what we actualy have. His prediction was for central switching stations, not distributed cell towers. What Telsa was talking about is not what we have today. It bears a superficial resemblance, but it is a completely different technology.
Yes, and many AGW proponents use that very argument to use any unusual weather pattern as "proof" of AGW, even when it is the opposite of what they had predicted. Hurricanes more severe than normal...proof of AGW. Hurricanes less severe than normal...proof of AGW.
Two people have responded with justifications for "hate crime" legislation. The problem is that those proposing these laws never try and prove that existing laws are insufficient detterent. For example, the argument was made in 2000 that hate crime legislation was needed in Texas because of the guys who drug a black man behind a pickup. Two of the three involved were sentenced to death. There was no evidence that the third was involved because of racism. Texas has no "hate crime" laws, yet this case was used to promote the idea of passing one. Exactly what greater penalty would a "hate crime" law have imposed on the men sentenced to death (note: there was no evidence that the one who was not sentenced to death had racial motivations in committing the crime).
The reason that many people use any cooling as "disproof" of Global Warming is because proponents of AGW have use any warming as "proof" of Global Warming.
Lala is music in the cloud, whereever you want it.
No, Lala was music in the cloud.
I still believe that Apple bought Lala to make it go away. Lala was available to purchase. Apple was afraid of what might happen if somebody with deep pockets (say Google or Amazon to name two) bought it and both expanded it and did a major marketing campaign for it.
I believe that if Apple agreed with you about the value of the things you list from Lala they would already be appearing in Itunes.
I'm pretty sure that a hypervisor vendor could justify not letting the guest OS see the hardware at all. All hardware calls from the guest OS are intercepted and answered by the hypervisor according to settings that the user pre-determines. If it so happens that this allows the user to tell OS X that is running on Apple hardware when it is actually running on something else, that's not the hypervisor vendor's problem.
Makes you wonder why they purchased it in the first place...
To eliminate some of the competition. Anybody with any sense knew that when they bought them. They only kept them running this long for two reasons. One, to try and migrate some of the users to Itunes. Two, to see if there was anything that Lala did that they wanted to implement in Itunes.
Harmful contamination of space and celestial bodies means to me, "don't make them more inhospitable to life than they already are." Since the suggestion is to terraform Mars, that would not be harmful to Mars in my interpretation. So, I do not agree that we have rules against engineering other planets.
This is why I asked for a more clear citation. I do not agree with your interpretation of the treaty and I do not believe that those who ratified it did either.
Slashdot Mirror
People keep defending the CRU keeping its data secret by saying "No one is going to release their data before they have published." The problem is the CRU has published and wants the governments of the world to spend trillions of dollars based on their conclusions, but still doesn't want to release their data.
The data that everyone keeps asking for is the data behind published papers.
So, nice straw man.
Whne you start publishing and demanding that trillions of dollars be spent based on the results of your research is when that data had better be released to the public for anyone to analyze as they like. If you want to spend my money, I want to know that your conclusions are based on the evidence, as interpreted by a third party.
Your list doesn't even come close to Obama's history of insulting US allies, pushing a massive economic stimulus bill that didn't stimulate the economy, pushing a "health care reform" bill whose "purpose" was to reign in insurance and pharmaceutical companies, yet is more strongly supported by those industries than any other group in the country.
As I asked in another post, upon what do you base such a low opinion of Sarah Palin? The current occupant of the White House has never demonstrated competence at anything other than running for office.
Of course there are, there are failing public schools in Arizona.
Upon what do you base your opinion that Sarah Palin is incompetent to be President? (NOTE: I am not saying she is competent to be President because I do not know). I do not see how she could be less competent than the current resident of the White House.
Wow, the number of distractive (e.g. straw-man) fallacies in that little comment, is astonishing. ^^
He specifically talks about handheld devices “not bigger than a [wrist]watch“ (last paragraph of the first column), used for communication. Which is exactly what mobile phones are. The BlackBerry that was stated in the title of the /. story, is a mobile phone. QED.
Really, I didn't realize that Blackberrys could be used as communication devices when they were thousands of miles from the nearest cell tower (which he also talks about in the article).
Really, you have a communication device powered by over the air electricity? That can communicate with people all over the world, even when it is thousands of miles from the nearest cell tower and is small enough that you could conceivably wear it as a watch?
You don't understand, these are the basic indoctrination classes, if the students miss these the whole indoctrination program might fail. What would we do as a country if we have university graduates who think for themselves and don't automatically buy whatever the current Democratic Party line is?
Facetiousness aside, it appears that initially it will be used only for core curriculum classes that most students could pass by showing up for class only on test days and taking the tests (and completing whatever other assignements are handed out). When I was in college I discovered that any class that included attendance as part of the grade had no content that I needed to learn in order to fulfill requirements to pass the class (additionally, the class discussion would be so boring that it provided no motivation for being there either).
You do know that the Republicans introduced at least 4 health care reform bills (all of which were short enough to read and understand)? You do know that when the Republicans wanted to negotiate on the "stimulus bill", Obama's answer was "I won"? Further, were you aware that a national bill on education was one of George W. Bush's top priorities when he was elected (before 9/11), so he asked Ted Kennedy to write the No Child Left Behind Act (when Republicans were in the majority)?
Hyperbole much? That's like saying that the Democrats would happily send bankers to the gulag for short selling investments,
That's ridiculous, if the Democrats sent the bankers to the gulags, where would they get their campaign contributions?
I was reading your source, and the results of the question "Do you believe Sarah Palin is more qualified to be President than Barack Obama?" almost made me spurt my nice pineapple juice.
So, does that mean that you think Obama is qualified to be President?
Way back in the day when I was in high school I heard Tesla predicted the Internet, using exactly that quote. There's no arguing that Tesla did a lot of amazing things but he's no technological Nostradamus, no matter how much people try to shoehorn him into the role.
Actually, he is a technological Nostradamus. People are always post facto saying that Nostradamus predicted stuff that happened. However, I have yet to see someone say, "Nostradamus predicted that tomorrow (or next week, or next year) such and such would happen." And then have such and such actually happen. It's always, "Such and such happened last week (last year) and if you read this by Nostradamus you can see how he clearly predicted it."
No, I am picking at technical details. The device that Tesla predicted would look completely different from a technical standpoint than the devices we have today. He was perdicitng something that would be an offshoot of his wireless electricity distribution system. As others have pointed out, the main thing to consider before thinking his predictions were so wonderfully prescient is how many predictions did he make that have not panned out at all.
If Tesla had been a science fiction writer (similar to, say, Jules Verne) I would be willing to allow that he predicted modern cell phones (and if that is all you want to make of it, OK). But as a technical innovator, his concept of mobile communication devices is based on a completely different technical paradigm. A technical paradigm that would never have led to the devices we know today.
The fairness doctrine does not promote the availability of more viewpoints. When the fairness doctrine was enforced, broadcast shows fell into two categories. Those that avoided all divisive issues at all cost and those that presented caricatures of viewpoints opposed to that held by the producers of the show.
As a result people were left with the impression that everyone who disagreed with the view favored by those who controlled the media were nutjobs.
I believe that the problem with our curret democracy is that we have said that it is good to make it easy to vote, the easier the better. This means that I can vote whether or not I am willing to take the trouble to find out where I have to go to register to vote (just check that box when I renew my driver's license). This means that I get to vote with no effort. What makes you think I am going to bother to be an informed voter if I can only be bothered to register if I don't have to take nay additional time out of my life to do so?
Once upon a time, imposing difficulties to registering to vote were used selectively to discourage particular groups from voting and that was legitimately viewed as a negative. However, now we have a mindset that voting should be easy. Doing a good job as a voter is not easy and we need to dispel the myth that it is.
While this article quotes Tesla predicting wireless technology, it is not very similar to what we actualy have. His prediction was for central switching stations, not distributed cell towers. What Telsa was talking about is not what we have today. It bears a superficial resemblance, but it is a completely different technology.
Yes, and many AGW proponents use that very argument to use any unusual weather pattern as "proof" of AGW, even when it is the opposite of what they had predicted. Hurricanes more severe than normal...proof of AGW. Hurricanes less severe than normal...proof of AGW.
What happens after Zealous Zebra ?
That was my thought as well. At "M" they are half way through the alphabet.
Two people have responded with justifications for "hate crime" legislation. The problem is that those proposing these laws never try and prove that existing laws are insufficient detterent. For example, the argument was made in 2000 that hate crime legislation was needed in Texas because of the guys who drug a black man behind a pickup. Two of the three involved were sentenced to death. There was no evidence that the third was involved because of racism. Texas has no "hate crime" laws, yet this case was used to promote the idea of passing one. Exactly what greater penalty would a "hate crime" law have imposed on the men sentenced to death (note: there was no evidence that the one who was not sentenced to death had racial motivations in committing the crime).
The reason that many people use any cooling as "disproof" of Global Warming is because proponents of AGW have use any warming as "proof" of Global Warming.
Lala is music in the cloud, whereever you want it.
No, Lala was music in the cloud.
I still believe that Apple bought Lala to make it go away. Lala was available to purchase. Apple was afraid of what might happen if somebody with deep pockets (say Google or Amazon to name two) bought it and both expanded it and did a major marketing campaign for it.
I believe that if Apple agreed with you about the value of the things you list from Lala they would already be appearing in Itunes.
I'm pretty sure that a hypervisor vendor could justify not letting the guest OS see the hardware at all. All hardware calls from the guest OS are intercepted and answered by the hypervisor according to settings that the user pre-determines. If it so happens that this allows the user to tell OS X that is running on Apple hardware when it is actually running on something else, that's not the hypervisor vendor's problem.
Makes you wonder why they purchased it in the first place...
To eliminate some of the competition. Anybody with any sense knew that when they bought them. They only kept them running this long for two reasons. One, to try and migrate some of the users to Itunes. Two, to see if there was anything that Lala did that they wanted to implement in Itunes.
Harmful contamination of space and celestial bodies means to me, "don't make them more inhospitable to life than they already are." Since the suggestion is to terraform Mars, that would not be harmful to Mars in my interpretation. So, I do not agree that we have rules against engineering other planets.
This is why I asked for a more clear citation. I do not agree with your interpretation of the treaty and I do not believe that those who ratified it did either.