My iPhoto is getting mighty slow, and I don't particularly want to spend the $50 to get iLife and upgrade it to the latest version (supposedly much faster).
I wonder if Tiger will have the latest version included. Anyone know, or care to guess?
I don't doubt you, since I've only done some light javascript programming. However, why is it that Google apps tend not to work in Safari at first? I always assumed it was because of Javascript incompatability.
What is the "it" you are referring to? Global warming means the Earth is getting warmer. It doesn't mean that every place will get warmer. The ~150 years of weather data are quite clear on the warming trend.
I wonder if Rails uses Ruby's support for continuations, to build a continuation based webserver. There are a few, like plt-scheme's webserver, and Seaside for Smalltalk.
In fact, I've compared both of those in a article on my blog (sorry for the self-promotion). It would be cool if Rails can do this too...
MovableType has had a feature like this for a long time, in which web links are redirected so they do not influence Google's PageRank algorithm.
It does not matter at all. MT blogs still gets comment spam on a regular basis, even though that spam is ineffective.
For a spammer, it is not cost-effective to check each blog to see whether spamming will have an effect or not, it is easier to just spam everyone and whatever works, works. This will be true of Google's solution as well.
I'm not sure I get your point. The court has already ruled on Microsoft, so that's not very controversial. But Apple? What is it a monopoly of? Not operating systems, not software, not peripherals. in fact the only thing I do which they have a dominant market share in is the iPod.
I call bullshit. If you think that younger people don't have about the same context switching costs as older people, or can store more than the 7 +/- 2 pieces of information in their head at once, please post a cite showing this. I doubt you will be able to.
Your post may be true for something, but it certainly isn't true for what this article talks about, which is the dangers of multitasking.
Long waits are part of the problem
on
Life Interrupted
·
· Score: 1
I find, personally, that I will context switch if I'm doing a task that makes me wait more than 10 or so seconds. Compiling is a great example. Who can sit still and just wait for it to compile? It's a perfect time to browse the web, which leads to its own set of distractions.
Probably, if compiles and other long tasks were much shorter, it would be easier to maintain focus. Or perhaps I need to train myself to simply wait.
That is your opinion, and you have a right to it. But the facts are that the scientific consensus believes that it is likely that humans are changing the atmosphere of the Earth.
"Likely" is not certainty, but I don't think we need certainty to act on this issue.
I agree, best to look at the Nature story itself. However, the actual article is not online, although you can read a summary here.
Read it, draw your own conclusions. Just respect the science they put into it. What you are accusing them of is a huge breach of scientific ethics - the deliberate fudging of data (or in this case, models) to support the conclusion you want. I'm guessing you have no evidence for this.
Wow, you don't know much about science, do you? Try reading a few other papers, you will find words like "can" and "may" very often, mostly due to the use of statistics.
Everyone is vulnerable to being prey to their own preconceived ideas, but the bias of the research scientist seems miniscule compared to the bias of industry, which has a profit motive driving its actions.
Yes, any assertion needs evidence. The global warming research done so far presents evidence. If the consensus is that global warming is real and is almost certainly caused by humans, then that is the weight of the available evidence at the current time. Since I have neither the expertise to judge these manners, nor the time to become an expert, believing in the scientific consensus is the only logical thing to do.
Consensus should oppose other hypothesis that are not as proven as the consensus is. That's just common sense. One study should not be able to overturn the results of 100 studies. Scientists are cautious about these things - that's why consensus often moves fairly slowly.
If Crichton has a better hypothesis, he is welcome to publish such a hypothesis in a peer-reviewed journal. Since he has failed to do so, I can only assume he has no evidence.
Just because science doesn't have a conclusion, doesn't mean there isn't a consensus. Anyone saying the consensus is wrong should probably have some good evidence.
He shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, no. but when his main points are "hey, science isn't perfect!" and "what about these handful of facts that appear to contradict global warming", then I think it's not worth even discussing, because nothing of substance is being said. First of all, he's not even a remotely an expert in climatology, so he isn't a great judge of how his facts relate to global warming. Second of all, of course science isn't perfect, but it's the best we've got.
Does anyone really take that Crichton essay seriously? i love how he attempts to dispute decades of intensive research in Global Warming by a lot of hand-waving and mumbo-jumbo. I think he doesn't understand what true skepticism is.
Right, as I said before, only one of them actually served with John Kerry, the rest of them said they did, but didn't in any meaningful way. The people on John Kerry's boat have stood behind him. The claims have shown to either be unfalsiable (with claims along the lines of "although I don't know Kerry, I served with him and he can't be trusted"), or lies. The whole premise is stupid, complaining about his Purple Hearts. Take it up with the Navy, people. You can't issue yourself any purple hearts...
Beside, even Bush has (eventually) denounced the ads. You disagree with him?
Like I said, i knew you would go after Ben Barnes. He doesn't like Bush, perhaps because of what he already knows about him? The fact is, he was in a position to help, and said he did. If he doesn't like Bush now, perhaps it's because of what he witnessed before? That's a supposition, but so is your position.
Also, please explain how the liberal media didn't show how weak the case for the Iraq was really was. Explain how the New York Times and the Washington Post had to apologize for, in essense, being a mouthpiece for Bush.
You are right that implication without concrete proof is rumor. However, it's not unreasonable that Bush got strings pulled in his favor. It's even likely (how else to explain that Bush easily got in the Guard when there was a long waiting list?), and Ben Barnes has stated that he pulled strings for him. Of course you will dismiss this out of hand, which is awfully easy way to win arguments...
The ABC memo? Sorry, it still doesn't say what you think it says. Nowhere does it talk about a harder standard, it merely says that Bush's statements are more egregious lies than Kerry's, so don't feel obligated to compare the two as if they were equal.
The Swiftboat veterens did lie. Remember "I served with John Kerry...". That was a lie. Or, should I blame the media for that statement? They've been caught at a number of different lies, really just too numerous to mention.
Your statistics showing bias are one-sided. I could equally cite statistics that most of MacNeil / Lehrer and Nightline's guests are conservative. Or simply point out Fox news, and even CBS, which recently spiked a story exposing the Uranium forgeries. Or I could reference "Manufacturing Consent" by Chomsky and Herman, or "What Liberal Media?" by Eric Alterman. Or ask why I frequently have to go to international sources to find out things about my own country.
The media has a bias, I will admit. But it tends to be towards bias towards simplistic or emotional arguments, rather than a bias towards the left or right.
You think there is nothing to the national guard story? That the implication that Bush, of the rich, powerful Bush family, may have had strings pulled for him is "rediculous"? As others have pointed out, only one memo was arguably fake, the rest of the evidence (or lack of evidence in some cases) has not been denied.
Also, you misunderstand the ABC memo, which was merely saying don't make the story more objective than the facts allow.
Also, you don't understand job figures. There are new people being added to the workforce all the time. If the job growth figures don't keep up with that, it is bad news.
You are confused abou the swiftboat vets. The media criticized them because they lied, and they had obvious connections to the Bush campaign. Discussion of this is far too great to get into now.
The rest of your points are equally stupid, especially the one about the POW's having their say. I think you completely miss what people are angry about here.
Yeah, maybe none of the global warming scientists know that they are talking about. Perhaps they have all ignored very good evidence you have brought forward. In that case, the skeptics could easily write a paper blowing the lid off the whole deal and get it published in a presigious journal.
However, since that has not happened, and since I am not a climatoligist myself, I choose to believe the experts.
Slashdot Mirror
My iPhoto is getting mighty slow, and I don't particularly want to spend the $50 to get iLife and upgrade it to the latest version (supposedly much faster).
I wonder if Tiger will have the latest version included. Anyone know, or care to guess?
I don't doubt you, since I've only done some light javascript programming. However, why is it that Google apps tend not to work in Safari at first? I always assumed it was because of Javascript incompatability.
And your point is...?
What is the "it" you are referring to? Global warming means the Earth is getting warmer. It doesn't mean that every place will get warmer. The ~150 years of weather data are quite clear on the warming trend.
I wonder if Rails uses Ruby's support for continuations, to build a continuation based webserver. There are a few, like plt-scheme's webserver, and Seaside for Smalltalk.
In fact, I've compared both of those in a article on my blog (sorry for the self-promotion). It would be cool if Rails can do this too...
MovableType has had a feature like this for a long time, in which web links are redirected so they do not influence Google's PageRank algorithm.
It does not matter at all. MT blogs still gets comment spam on a regular basis, even though that spam is ineffective.
For a spammer, it is not cost-effective to check each blog to see whether spamming will have an effect or not, it is easier to just spam everyone and whatever works, works. This will be true of Google's solution as well.
I'm not sure I get your point. The court has already ruled on Microsoft, so that's not very controversial. But Apple? What is it a monopoly of? Not operating systems, not software, not peripherals. in fact the only thing I do which they have a dominant market share in is the iPod.
Can you clarify?
The difference is, Microsoft is a monopoly, and Apple is not. If Apple comes to dominate the industry, their practices would be just as evil.
I call bullshit. If you think that younger people don't have about the same context switching costs as older people, or can store more than the 7 +/- 2 pieces of information in their head at once, please post a cite showing this. I doubt you will be able to.
Your post may be true for something, but it certainly isn't true for what this article talks about, which is the dangers of multitasking.
I find, personally, that I will context switch if I'm doing a task that makes me wait more than 10 or so seconds. Compiling is a great example. Who can sit still and just wait for it to compile? It's a perfect time to browse the web, which leads to its own set of distractions.
Probably, if compiles and other long tasks were much shorter, it would be easier to maintain focus. Or perhaps I need to train myself to simply wait.
That is your opinion, and you have a right to it. But the facts are that the scientific consensus believes that it is likely that humans are changing the atmosphere of the Earth.
"Likely" is not certainty, but I don't think we need certainty to act on this issue.
I agree, best to look at the Nature story itself. However, the actual article is not online, although you can read a summary here.
Read it, draw your own conclusions. Just respect the science they put into it. What you are accusing them of is a huge breach of scientific ethics - the deliberate fudging of data (or in this case, models) to support the conclusion you want. I'm guessing you have no evidence for this.
Wow, you don't know much about science, do you? Try reading a few other papers, you will find words like "can" and "may" very often, mostly due to the use of statistics.
Everyone is vulnerable to being prey to their own preconceived ideas, but the bias of the research scientist seems miniscule compared to the bias of industry, which has a profit motive driving its actions.
Yes, any assertion needs evidence. The global warming research done so far presents evidence. If the consensus is that global warming is real and is almost certainly caused by humans, then that is the weight of the available evidence at the current time. Since I have neither the expertise to judge these manners, nor the time to become an expert, believing in the scientific consensus is the only logical thing to do.
Consensus should oppose other hypothesis that are not as proven as the consensus is. That's just common sense. One study should not be able to overturn the results of 100 studies. Scientists are cautious about these things - that's why consensus often moves fairly slowly.
If Crichton has a better hypothesis, he is welcome to publish such a hypothesis in a peer-reviewed journal. Since he has failed to do so, I can only assume he has no evidence.
Just because science doesn't have a conclusion, doesn't mean there isn't a consensus. Anyone saying the consensus is wrong should probably have some good evidence.
He shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, no. but when his main points are "hey, science isn't perfect!" and "what about these handful of facts that appear to contradict global warming", then I think it's not worth even discussing, because nothing of substance is being said. First of all, he's not even a remotely an expert in climatology, so he isn't a great judge of how his facts relate to global warming. Second of all, of course science isn't perfect, but it's the best we've got.
Anyone who things science has a "conclusion" ... well, you know the rest...
Does anyone really take that Crichton essay seriously? i love how he attempts to dispute decades of intensive research in Global Warming by a lot of hand-waving and mumbo-jumbo. I think he doesn't understand what true skepticism is.
I'm sure this has already occurred to you, but whether you buy an Apple or not will have no appreciable effect on long-term market dynamics.
Ubber?
At any rate, thanks for inanely speculating on what people would have said, then using that speculation to attack them. Very classy.
Right, as I said before, only one of them actually served with John Kerry, the rest of them said they did, but didn't in any meaningful way. The people on John Kerry's boat have stood behind him. The claims have shown to either be unfalsiable (with claims along the lines of "although I don't know Kerry, I served with him and he can't be trusted"), or lies. The whole premise is stupid, complaining about his Purple Hearts. Take it up with the Navy, people. You can't issue yourself any purple hearts...
Beside, even Bush has (eventually) denounced the ads. You disagree with him?
Like I said, i knew you would go after Ben Barnes. He doesn't like Bush, perhaps because of what he already knows about him? The fact is, he was in a position to help, and said he did. If he doesn't like Bush now, perhaps it's because of what he witnessed before? That's a supposition, but so is your position.
For statistics about MacNeil / Lehrer see FAIR's analysis.
Also, please explain how the liberal media didn't show how weak the case for the Iraq was really was. Explain how the New York Times and the Washington Post had to apologize for, in essense, being a mouthpiece for Bush.
You are right that implication without concrete proof is rumor. However, it's not unreasonable that Bush got strings pulled in his favor. It's even likely (how else to explain that Bush easily got in the Guard when there was a long waiting list?), and Ben Barnes has stated that he pulled strings for him. Of course you will dismiss this out of hand, which is awfully easy way to win arguments...
The ABC memo? Sorry, it still doesn't say what you think it says. Nowhere does it talk about a harder standard, it merely says that Bush's statements are more egregious lies than Kerry's, so don't feel obligated to compare the two as if they were equal.
The Swiftboat veterens did lie. Remember "I served with John Kerry...". That was a lie. Or, should I blame the media for that statement? They've been caught at a number of different lies, really just too numerous to mention.
Your statistics showing bias are one-sided. I could equally cite statistics that most of MacNeil / Lehrer and Nightline's guests are conservative. Or simply point out Fox news, and even CBS, which recently spiked a story exposing the Uranium forgeries. Or I could reference "Manufacturing Consent" by Chomsky and Herman, or "What Liberal Media?" by Eric Alterman. Or ask why I frequently have to go to international sources to find out things about my own country.
The media has a bias, I will admit. But it tends to be towards bias towards simplistic or emotional arguments, rather than a bias towards the left or right.
Wrong on almost all counts.
You think there is nothing to the national guard story? That the implication that Bush, of the rich, powerful Bush family, may have had strings pulled for him is "rediculous"? As others have pointed out, only one memo was arguably fake, the rest of the evidence (or lack of evidence in some cases) has not been denied.
Also, you misunderstand the ABC memo, which was merely saying don't make the story more objective than the facts allow.
Also, you don't understand job figures. There are new people being added to the workforce all the time. If the job growth figures don't keep up with that, it is bad news.
You are confused abou the swiftboat vets. The media criticized them because they lied, and they had obvious connections to the Bush campaign. Discussion of this is far too great to get into now.
The rest of your points are equally stupid, especially the one about the POW's having their say. I think you completely miss what people are angry about here.
Yeah, maybe none of the global warming scientists know that they are talking about. Perhaps they have all ignored very good evidence you have brought forward. In that case, the skeptics could easily write a paper blowing the lid off the whole deal and get it published in a presigious journal.
However, since that has not happened, and since I am not a climatoligist myself, I choose to believe the experts.
Doesn't this seem like a wise thing to do?