I know. I'm just saying that if you combat ignorance with condescension and hostility, then the ignorant are going to continue being ignorant because of their knee-jerk reaction to the assholes on the side of science.
Or we can keep this argument in the realm of emotion, assholery, and dogma and continue in the way we've been going. I'm sure that'll work out for us in the long run.
Manmade CO2 emissions are much smaller than natural emissions. Consumption of vegetation by animals & microbes accounts for about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 per year. Respiration by vegetation emits around 220 gigatonnes. The ocean releases about 332 gigatonnes. In contrast, when you combine the effect of fossil fuel burning and changes in land use, human CO2 emissions are only around 29 gigatonnes per year.
You're right that volcanism is a very small modern source of CO2, but human activity is still a very small minority of global output. Choosing to use volcanism as the comparison is misleading at best. The science is conclusive in favor of global warming, so accuracy and facts are enough to combat bad conclusions.
That's what W8 is. Tablets require a better development stack to abstract out different hardwares, a touch-friendly interface (you're much-hated tiles), and stripped down internals. Isn't that basically what W8 is?
Gates doesn't want any part of that I'd imagine. He seems to have embraced philanthropy pretty strongly, and he's be walking into a possibly unwinnable war.
My favorite part of the conspiracy theory is where the government is competent enough to cover this up indefinitely, but not competent enough to come up with a better plan.
So what you're saying is that it's a high risk operation with no reward? And that somebody involved would probably have come forward by now since that would be a huge news story, they'd be a hero, and there's no moral justification for the action?
I think you misunderstood his comment. While what you say is true, the marginal reward he's talking about is competitive advantage over those not cheating. If you cheat and nobody else does, you get an advantage over everybody. If you cheat and everybody else does, you get no advantage. The more people cheat the less advantage there is to cheating compared to everyone else.
That's not taking into account the other societal problems that rampant cheating creates, though, and I think everyone can agree that everyone would be better off with no cheating.
Hundreds or thousands of engineers working on something and a technically unimportant piece slipping through the cracks?
Would you think with all the people Microsoft has in their employ they would assign the duty of EU Compliance Checklist Monitor to someone?
I would expect it to be a lawyer who's not embedded in the engineering department and didn't see the need or even realize the potential of checking a service pack. Taking into account that this probably isn't their primary version of windows, and it seems pretty easy for this to legitimately slip through the cracks.
Just like capitalism/free markets, when done correctly it's great and absolutely vital to the welfare of the nation. It's when things are taken too far that we have problems.
She's not. She made the choice to believe instead. Too many atheists, people like you and Dawkins, act like assholes about their lack of religion, and that's one of the reasons she chose to believe in her religion.
I agree with that, but many of his quotes are insulting, not disagreements. First of all, he paints all religions with the same brush. Some religions actively encourage scientific inquiry, some religions tell you to question your faith, and some discourage inquiry and questions. Taking them all the same is insulting, and saying that religion is actively damaging to the world is insulting as well.
Dawkins is a smart man, but I think he actively damages relations between atheists and theists. I have a sister who would be atheist but she doesn't want to be associated with people like that. I know many other people who are atheist, but don't take on the label because of how antagonistic atheists like Dawkins are.
From the article I read elsewhere, the Motorola purchase is what caused the drop in profit. If it weren't for that purchase they would have been more profitable, although still not as profitable as wall street had forecasted. So, while the purchase itself might cause some concern, the numbers alone shouldn't.
Now, as to whether the purchase of Motorola is a sign that Google's on the decline is an interesting question.
Re:While we're talking about sexism in Science
on
Sexism In Science
·
· Score: 1
Of course it is, but that doesn't mean it's not a problem. If it's a 60/40 split, that's defensible. If it's a 95/5 split, then we've got a problem.
Python. That's a language that's being driven by developer adoption, not businesses or schools. Using it as an example of traditional success is ridiculous.
I think a useful distinction is what makes good software. If it runs the world, I think there's a strong argument to be made that the software is good.
People keep i* packaging? That's kinda weird and squirrelly.
My wife and I use our iPad box as a random box for gift giving. It's the perfect size for a lot of our gifts and disguises the size of what's inside. It also gives the recipient a brief "HOLY SHIT!" moment before they realize it's not an iPad, it's something else inside an iPad box.
Keeping it because it's beautiful is just dumb, though.
Slashdot Mirror
I know. I'm just saying that if you combat ignorance with condescension and hostility, then the ignorant are going to continue being ignorant because of their knee-jerk reaction to the assholes on the side of science.
Or we can keep this argument in the realm of emotion, assholery, and dogma and continue in the way we've been going. I'm sure that'll work out for us in the long run.
Manmade CO2 emissions are much smaller than natural emissions. Consumption of vegetation by animals & microbes accounts for about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 per year. Respiration by vegetation emits around 220 gigatonnes. The ocean releases about 332 gigatonnes. In contrast, when you combine the effect of fossil fuel burning and changes in land use, human CO2 emissions are only around 29 gigatonnes per year.
You're right that volcanism is a very small modern source of CO2, but human activity is still a very small minority of global output. Choosing to use volcanism as the comparison is misleading at best. The science is conclusive in favor of global warming, so accuracy and facts are enough to combat bad conclusions.
MS should have spent resources making 7 viable
That's what W8 is. Tablets require a better development stack to abstract out different hardwares, a touch-friendly interface (you're much-hated tiles), and stripped down internals. Isn't that basically what W8 is?
Gates doesn't want any part of that I'd imagine. He seems to have embraced philanthropy pretty strongly, and he's be walking into a possibly unwinnable war.
My favorite part of the conspiracy theory is where the government is competent enough to cover this up indefinitely, but not competent enough to come up with a better plan.
So what you're saying is that it's a high risk operation with no reward? And that somebody involved would probably have come forward by now since that would be a huge news story, they'd be a hero, and there's no moral justification for the action?
Sounds like you're the crazy one!
I think you misunderstood his comment. While what you say is true, the marginal reward he's talking about is competitive advantage over those not cheating. If you cheat and nobody else does, you get an advantage over everybody. If you cheat and everybody else does, you get no advantage. The more people cheat the less advantage there is to cheating compared to everyone else.
That's not taking into account the other societal problems that rampant cheating creates, though, and I think everyone can agree that everyone would be better off with no cheating.
How do you explain something like this?
Hundreds or thousands of engineers working on something and a technically unimportant piece slipping through the cracks?
Would you think with all the people Microsoft has in their employ they would assign the duty of EU Compliance Checklist Monitor to someone?
I would expect it to be a lawyer who's not embedded in the engineering department and didn't see the need or even realize the potential of checking a service pack. Taking into account that this probably isn't their primary version of windows, and it seems pretty easy for this to legitimately slip through the cracks.
Just like capitalism/free markets, when done correctly it's great and absolutely vital to the welfare of the nation. It's when things are taken too far that we have problems.
She's not. She made the choice to believe instead. Too many atheists, people like you and Dawkins, act like assholes about their lack of religion, and that's one of the reasons she chose to believe in her religion.
I agree with that, but many of his quotes are insulting, not disagreements. First of all, he paints all religions with the same brush. Some religions actively encourage scientific inquiry, some religions tell you to question your faith, and some discourage inquiry and questions. Taking them all the same is insulting, and saying that religion is actively damaging to the world is insulting as well.
Dawkins is a smart man, but I think he actively damages relations between atheists and theists. I have a sister who would be atheist but she doesn't want to be associated with people like that. I know many other people who are atheist, but don't take on the label because of how antagonistic atheists like Dawkins are.
prove whether the operating system will halt
One of the few applications where proving that it will halt always leads to a bug being filed.
From the article I read elsewhere, the Motorola purchase is what caused the drop in profit. If it weren't for that purchase they would have been more profitable, although still not as profitable as wall street had forecasted. So, while the purchase itself might cause some concern, the numbers alone shouldn't.
Now, as to whether the purchase of Motorola is a sign that Google's on the decline is an interesting question.
Of course it is, but that doesn't mean it's not a problem. If it's a 60/40 split, that's defensible. If it's a 95/5 split, then we've got a problem.
That doesn't say anything about how it's stored in the database.
Or just smile big when you're on camera. Seems like facial expression is a pretty glaring deficiency for facial recognition software.
Clearly it's not there yet, but we're already doing something that could be considered telekinesis.
Actually, the poll finds the exact opposite.
Just like that. The summary was saying that its success came from a critical mass of universities teaching it, which is just wrong.
Python. That's a language that's being driven by developer adoption, not businesses or schools. Using it as an example of traditional success is ridiculous.
I think a useful distinction is what makes good software. If it runs the world, I think there's a strong argument to be made that the software is good.
I don't know the peoper "its" to use.
Today's not treating you too well, is it?
People keep i* packaging? That's kinda weird and squirrelly.
My wife and I use our iPad box as a random box for gift giving. It's the perfect size for a lot of our gifts and disguises the size of what's inside. It also gives the recipient a brief "HOLY SHIT!" moment before they realize it's not an iPad, it's something else inside an iPad box.
Keeping it because it's beautiful is just dumb, though.
As trustworthy as ACs usually are, I doubt that a "token woman" would make it to VP level.
Is there any way you could email me 50 cds with this story on it? My Grandma would really appreciate it.