Should I believe the pro-AGW scientists who refuse to share their data, or the anti-AGW scientists who remain skeptical of the data that is available?
If AGW were as clear-cut as pro-AGW scientists like to pretend it is, there would be no need for them to hide their data. That by itself is more than enough to cause my skepticism, and it's hardly the only uncertainty when it comes to AGW.
Probably because the only effective way to replace our current power usage with "green" energy sources is nuclear, but the environmentalists don't want us to use nuclear power because.... actually, I've never really understood why.
In other words, they want us to reduce our energy usage (and thus our CO2 production) but they also want to prevent us from doing what it would take to maintain our current lifestyle. Go figure.
Americans as a whole don't like giving up our luxuries, and as a result I don't think most of us would react kindly to a carbon tax (at least not before we have nuclear power infrastructure in place, which is the case right now).
"Checking the numbers" only works on those whose minds are open enough to step outside the comforting, narrative-supporting cocoon of Fox News and question the notion that everything that challenges your assumptions is part of the conspiracy. And even well-educated, otherwise mentally-capable people can be imprisoned by that narrative, because it's comforting.
So you're saying that all the people who have checked the numbers and still doubt AGW are... deluded? Crazy? Blind followers of Fox News?
The "you need an open mind" argument is only valid coming from someone who doesn't apply absurd stereotypes to those who disagree. (Which, if I haven't been clear, excludes you.)
I'd prefer not launching to what the original Hitman does if you try to run it in windowed mode - it centers itself, meaning it's half on each monitor, and there's no title bar... of course fullscreen doesn't work properly either.
Nope, it's not the fact that you caught a mouse that's patented, it's the method you used to do it.
In other words, "a mousetrap" is not patented; what is patented is "a method to catch a mouse by baiting it into stepping on a switch releasing a spring-loaded lever which traps or kills the mouse". Or "a method to catch a mouse by baiting it through a one-way door, trapping it in a confined space until it dies". There are probably a dozen more methods to catch mice that are all patented by different people.
I stand by my original statement - it's the method that's patented, not the end result.
They didn't patent the HTML, they patented a method for doing whatever it is they did with that HTML. (You don't patent end results, you patent methods or processes. End results are covered by copyright.)
(Please don't construe this comment as support for MS's actions... I think software patents are completely stupid.)
In your example, the "maximize" button in OS X will make the window as big as it needs to be in the current context. Sometimes that may be fullscreen, other times not.
Except when the "zoom" button is just broken, shrinking the window from its current size and refusing to toggle it back;) (Safari, I'm looking at you.)
Anyway, I agree with you - it's not wrong for them to explain that that's not how things are done. It is wrong, however, for them to just say "you don't want to do that" with no explanation, and it's definitely wrong of them to get derisive when you still think you do.
(Case in point: I was reading some of Apple's iPhone developer documentation in Safari. I wanted to see more of the documentation on the screen at once, so I pressed zoom; the window got smaller. Pressed it again, and rather than toggling back to its previous size as it should, it instead became even smaller... I had to manually size it larger. What's worse, OSX doesn't do snap-to-borders when you're resizing windows, making it a pain if you really do want to work with multiple windows on your screen at once.)
I think the biggest issue is that users don't like being told how to do their work (especially not when the users in question are developers with established workflows) - they want the OS to cooperate with them, not fight them every step of the way. This is a problem regardless of which OSes you're switching between, but IMO it's far easier to switch between Linux and Windows than between OSX and anything else.
Yeah, I know. I'll probably be among the first to download Steam for Linux, but since it's not officially confirmed yet, and since most games are going to remain Windows-only anyway, I think it's still a valid comparison;)
That's why it's most important to look for the right context in which to introduce Linux as an alternative.
You don't try to get your Steam-junkie gamer buddy to switch to Linux. You try to get your sister who blogs and plays Facebook games to switch to Linux. It's all about seeing whose needs can be filled by Linux, and looking for those people.
And if you want to get a specific person to switch, you figure out what their needs are, and then make Linux fill those needs - you don't try to get them to change their minds about what their needs are. (Even if you'd be right to do so, it won't come across that way. This is OSX's biggest problem - if you ask on a forum "How do I maximize my windows in OSX" the replies will be mostly "you don't want to do that". That attitude earns zero conversions, and we should avoid that attitude if we want Linux to gain ground.)
(This is of course generalizable to any open source software.)
Leaving a wireless access point open with the intent to share it doesn't mean you're a provider, it means you're sharing your service.
If I wire a telephone outside my house and post a sign that says "feel free to make personal calls", I'm not suddenly a telephone service provider; I'm just sharing the service I'm paying for.
And, what rules for individuals would you be trying to get around?
The difference now is that they can't even get refurbished OtherOS-capable units to replace their dying ones, because the refurbished units will probably have updated firmware.
Buy a kindle? Have YOUR PAID FOR books removed at amazons will.
At least Amazon restored those purchases to affected users in short order, and it didn't even take a lawsuit to get them to do it. Sony has shown no intention of compensating their users in any way for the feature removal, despite millions of nerd-voices crying out in despair, several lawsuits being filed against them, and the US military getting annoyed.
I guess what I'm saying is, given their respective track records, I'd rather trust Amazon to not take away my $10 eBook than trust Sony to not disable my $400 console.
You're pretending that setting up an open wireless access point automatically makes you a "telecommunications carrier". There is no legal precedent for that, as far as I'm aware, and it wouldn't make sense to classify private citizens as telecommunications carriers just because they set up a $50 wireless router.
Steam itself breaks if you try to run it in Win9x compatibility mode. If Steam launches a game, the game runs in the same compatibility mode as Steam. Therefore, if a game requires Win9x compatibility mode, Steam is not compatible with that game.
I fail to see how this is Steam's fault, and I certainly don't see how this somehow makes Steam "malware".
Oh, and in case you're not clear on what I meant, Steam doesn't prevent you from running non-Steam stuff in Win9x compatibility mode, only Steam games.
Slashdot Mirror
Should I believe the pro-AGW scientists who refuse to share their data, or the anti-AGW scientists who remain skeptical of the data that is available?
If AGW were as clear-cut as pro-AGW scientists like to pretend it is, there would be no need for them to hide their data. That by itself is more than enough to cause my skepticism, and it's hardly the only uncertainty when it comes to AGW.
All I'm saying is it's hypocritical to shout "You need an open mind!" while simultaneously demonstrating one's own closed-mindedness.
Probably because the only effective way to replace our current power usage with "green" energy sources is nuclear, but the environmentalists don't want us to use nuclear power because.... actually, I've never really understood why.
In other words, they want us to reduce our energy usage (and thus our CO2 production) but they also want to prevent us from doing what it would take to maintain our current lifestyle. Go figure.
Americans as a whole don't like giving up our luxuries, and as a result I don't think most of us would react kindly to a carbon tax (at least not before we have nuclear power infrastructure in place, which is the case right now).
It's not the CO2 that kills you if you do that, it's the lack of oxygen. The CO2 is irrelevant.
"Checking the numbers" only works on those whose minds are open enough to step outside the comforting, narrative-supporting cocoon of Fox News and question the notion that everything that challenges your assumptions is part of the conspiracy. And even well-educated, otherwise mentally-capable people can be imprisoned by that narrative, because it's comforting.
So you're saying that all the people who have checked the numbers and still doubt AGW are... deluded? Crazy? Blind followers of Fox News?
The "you need an open mind" argument is only valid coming from someone who doesn't apply absurd stereotypes to those who disagree. (Which, if I haven't been clear, excludes you.)
I'd prefer not launching to what the original Hitman does if you try to run it in windowed mode - it centers itself, meaning it's half on each monitor, and there's no title bar... of course fullscreen doesn't work properly either.
Nope, it's not the fact that you caught a mouse that's patented, it's the method you used to do it.
In other words, "a mousetrap" is not patented; what is patented is "a method to catch a mouse by baiting it into stepping on a switch releasing a spring-loaded lever which traps or kills the mouse". Or "a method to catch a mouse by baiting it through a one-way door, trapping it in a confined space until it dies". There are probably a dozen more methods to catch mice that are all patented by different people.
I stand by my original statement - it's the method that's patented, not the end result.
That's exactly why I think software patents are stupid.
They didn't patent the HTML, they patented a method for doing whatever it is they did with that HTML. (You don't patent end results, you patent methods or processes. End results are covered by copyright.)
(Please don't construe this comment as support for MS's actions... I think software patents are completely stupid.)
In your example, the "maximize" button in OS X will make the window as big as it needs to be in the current context. Sometimes that may be fullscreen, other times not.
Except when the "zoom" button is just broken, shrinking the window from its current size and refusing to toggle it back ;) (Safari, I'm looking at you.)
Anyway, I agree with you - it's not wrong for them to explain that that's not how things are done. It is wrong, however, for them to just say "you don't want to do that" with no explanation, and it's definitely wrong of them to get derisive when you still think you do.
(Case in point: I was reading some of Apple's iPhone developer documentation in Safari. I wanted to see more of the documentation on the screen at once, so I pressed zoom; the window got smaller. Pressed it again, and rather than toggling back to its previous size as it should, it instead became even smaller... I had to manually size it larger. What's worse, OSX doesn't do snap-to-borders when you're resizing windows, making it a pain if you really do want to work with multiple windows on your screen at once.)
I think the biggest issue is that users don't like being told how to do their work (especially not when the users in question are developers with established workflows) - they want the OS to cooperate with them, not fight them every step of the way. This is a problem regardless of which OSes you're switching between, but IMO it's far easier to switch between Linux and Windows than between OSX and anything else.
Yeah, I know. I'll probably be among the first to download Steam for Linux, but since it's not officially confirmed yet, and since most games are going to remain Windows-only anyway, I think it's still a valid comparison ;)
That's why it's most important to look for the right context in which to introduce Linux as an alternative.
You don't try to get your Steam-junkie gamer buddy to switch to Linux. You try to get your sister who blogs and plays Facebook games to switch to Linux. It's all about seeing whose needs can be filled by Linux, and looking for those people.
And if you want to get a specific person to switch, you figure out what their needs are, and then make Linux fill those needs - you don't try to get them to change their minds about what their needs are. (Even if you'd be right to do so, it won't come across that way. This is OSX's biggest problem - if you ask on a forum "How do I maximize my windows in OSX" the replies will be mostly "you don't want to do that". That attitude earns zero conversions, and we should avoid that attitude if we want Linux to gain ground.)
(This is of course generalizable to any open source software.)
Leaving a wireless access point open with the intent to share it doesn't mean you're a provider, it means you're sharing your service.
If I wire a telephone outside my house and post a sign that says "feel free to make personal calls", I'm not suddenly a telephone service provider; I'm just sharing the service I'm paying for.
And, what rules for individuals would you be trying to get around?
But what if, when Jesus said "and the first shall be last, and the last shall be first", he was talking about those angels? ;)
The difference now is that they can't even get refurbished OtherOS-capable units to replace their dying ones, because the refurbished units will probably have updated firmware.
I don't see why I'd ever want to be treated as a provider.
Sure, unless I also want to watch new Blu-ray movies which require the update, or play $NEW_GAME, or continue playing my existing games online.
Buy a kindle? Have YOUR PAID FOR books removed at amazons will.
At least Amazon restored those purchases to affected users in short order, and it didn't even take a lawsuit to get them to do it. Sony has shown no intention of compensating their users in any way for the feature removal, despite millions of nerd-voices crying out in despair, several lawsuits being filed against them, and the US military getting annoyed.
I guess what I'm saying is, given their respective track records, I'd rather trust Amazon to not take away my $10 eBook than trust Sony to not disable my $400 console.
You're pretending that setting up an open wireless access point automatically makes you a "telecommunications carrier". There is no legal precedent for that, as far as I'm aware, and it wouldn't make sense to classify private citizens as telecommunications carriers just because they set up a $50 wireless router.
Steam itself breaks if you try to run it in Win9x compatibility mode. If Steam launches a game, the game runs in the same compatibility mode as Steam. Therefore, if a game requires Win9x compatibility mode, Steam is not compatible with that game.
I fail to see how this is Steam's fault, and I certainly don't see how this somehow makes Steam "malware".
I don't mean some of Valve's games, I mean Steam itself doesn't work under Win9x.
If your product didn't function in compatibility mode in crash-inducing ways, wouldn't you prevent it from running in such modes?
Oh, and in case you're not clear on what I meant, Steam doesn't prevent you from running non-Steam stuff in Win9x compatibility mode, only Steam games.
It's because some of Steam's stuff simply doesn't work in those modes.
Kick ass ... steam for OS X ... and it won't run on a case-sensitive file system ... fucking brilliant guys, good job.
What's the problem? Case-insensitive is the default in both OSX and Windows; it's silly to get mad at them for not supporting edge cases.
At any rate, one would assume they'll resolve that issue before they release a Linux client, so just wait a few months if it's that important to you.
Not all games, no, just the games whose developers have ported to OSX. I think there are 57 games on the OSX-supported list right now.