The 15 bucks or whatever is for the restricted version. I don't understand how you think that entitles you to a different license than the one you bought.
I'm not above pirating Windows either, but for a netbook, why bother?
Your understanding of the word right is way out of whack. You get what you pay for, the rest is stealing. If you're going to do it, do it, but don't act like it's justified.
Isn't it possible to have a service interact with the desktop?
Of course, if people do that en masse, it may lead to the breakdown of the nicely segregated user model that MS tried so hard to force lazy ISVs to actually support.
To be honest, I do get hungry when I drink diet soda. I'm just super skeptical as a rule. I'd need to see it as part of a controlled study before I understood it to be an established effect that diet soda has. And again there is always the issue of correlation vs. causation. Who knows, maybe such a study exists, or maybe someday a causal relationship will be established.
It's fine as a rule of thumb. Also, I've never heard anyone say to me that it definitely had to come from a bottle. Obviously there's water in food, and anything that can rightly be called a liquid should count.
And none of this invalidates the actual statement, which was that too much water will flush out electrolytes.
Correlation does not imply lack of causation either
Speaking in general terms, the burden of proof is on the person trying to prove causation. If all you have is correlation then that's all you have.
and when plenty of people have made that particular shift without any other major lifestyle changes and then experienced the theorised consequences.
Are you saying that you have evidence of people becoming obese after drinking diet soda, in a controlled experiment? Because AFAIK these studies look at populations, and basically compare the two variables: diet soda drinking and weight. All you can prove with a study like that is correlation. You cannot get into talking about causation until you do an experimental study with a control group.
It really sounds like you're saying you have such data, and I'm going to have to call you out on that because that'd be shocking to me.
Statistics is that they don't necessarily apply to the individual, though. I lost 20 pounds recently, and while part of it was strict diet and exercise, part of it was cutting out crap like soda. But sometimes I want a soda, so I have diet soda. Technically I'm obese but my BMI is well on the way to merely overweight.
I have an alternate hypothesis about the diet soda statistic. Based on my own experience, if someone trying to lose weight isn't drinking only water, they might be doing it wrong. You have to get used to eating healthy and drinking healthy. For a while it seems like your are eating/living bland, but you get used to it and a healthy diet tastes normal while really rich foods taste really rich.
Maintaining weight is easy, and diet foods can be a help in that. But losing weight involves a lifestyle change that is torture at first but which gets easier with time. I used to drink a lot of sweetened stuff. Now it's mostly water, and I really enjoy drinking water all the time. Diet soda is like false hope. Anything in life worth having requires sacrifice, and giving someone soda that has no calories can be like telling them they don't have to sacrifice.
You young guys take note: when you love someone because you think he is better than you and insult those who criticise him, you're no better than the Mediaeval peasant who cheered as the Church burnt the heretic. Every post-Renaissance humanist pointed this out and it's no less true today.
This "security through obscurity" approach is in dramatic contrast to Microsoft's.
It didn't used to be. But MS got their act together. Hopefully one day Apple will too.
Gnome and KDE desktops, with compositing enabled, are probably prettier than Mac OS in most respects
"LOL"
Apple does do that ridiculous cube effect when you switch users, so I guess there's some overlap. But most of the compiz-fusion effects are incredibly tacky and nothing I'd want to use day to day. They do wow people (like when you use only 2 virtual desktops and "flip" the screen) but things like the wobbly windows are very distracting. Overall, there's a lot to like but a lot of it is superfluous, and what I like about OS X is that it doesn't have a lot of crazy crap.
Apple is not in Microsoft's position. The majority of their customers trust them to put out a good product, want to experience the improvements, and so are willing to upgrade. Whether or not you think that trust is warranted is up to you. Certainly, not everyone upgrades right away, and depending on the software and hardware config, not everyone can. As with PCs, some people will go on using what shipped with their hardware and wait until they buy new hardware to use the newer OS revision.
Apple is not just the OS maker, they are the OEM. Maybe if the Dells of the world did a better job of providing Vista upgrade options and support, people would have had a reason to upgrade. But the increased hardware requirements made that less likely I think. Here again, OS X is different: the hardware requirements are not greatly increased from version to version, and the few snafus are minor, unlike the situation where Vista's most popular graphics card, Intel's GMA, was underpowered for at least a year.
A final reason why there is less fear about upgrading in that camp is that the point releases are spaced closer in time and they do not represent the large change that XP to Vista did. It's less of a gamble. (In fact, it's not a gamble at all if you keep good backups, especially before OS upgrades, but as always the PEBCAK.)
So, in short, what you call 'new and shiny' is always a given, and traditionally Mac users who want those new features are (a) willing to pay money for software (weird, right?) and (b) not afraid to do the point upgrade.
Honestly, the whole thing to me feels like OEM-done-right: they make a polished product and people are willing to buy it rather than be afraid of it. And I don't know about you, but performance and security improvements are definitely features in my book. Why so critical?
There's not much you can do to prevent the combination of a trojan and a user determined to get it running on his machine.
You almost have to have that sixth sense for dodgy websites or software, because it's not always like the password prompt comes from the wrong place...with at least some of the (few) Mac trojans out there, they're just packaged as disk image files with installers inside, like everything else. For those people, anti-virus is the best option, I suppose.
We can hope that the security "culture" of having people sudo for admin tasks will hold back the floodgates of viruses that Windows has seen, but there's no technical basis for that.
OTOH, the world may never see another computer monoculture like it had with Wintel. As an agriculture monoculture, PCs were an easy infection target because of their uniformity and number. I wonder if, in an imaginary world where Win, Mac & Linux were split 30/30/30, you would still see 1/3 of the Windows malware? Hopefully not. Hopefully it'd be less.
They could always do an off-the-record search, get the right inodes (or whatever, depending on fs) and then do another pass under strict enough conditions to allow it to be evidence, but with the knowledge of where to look.
Maybe someone with more knowledge will say this isn't allowed but I was under the impression that it's not that the forensics expert isn't really banned from scanning the drive using a particular tool, it's just that the evidence has to meet certain strict requirements.
Sort of like doing the problem on your calculator and then going back and showing the steps once you know you've got it right:)
Are children like some sort of disease that need to be tracked? Of what use is it to these "childcare professionals" to know the name of every child in the UK?
Over time this is going to be a 1:1 census.
What are the benefits of this that outweigh the severe risk of having all of that data in one place? It seems like once a week there's an article on here about some huge privacy violation that the UK is already finished with. And this...I don't know anymore. It's just absurd at this point.
If Microsoft can have an OS monopoly with a 'mere' 90% of the market, I think we can safely call the conservative TV & talk radio business a monopoly.
Call it trolling if you will but I think that there is something to the idea that liberal-leaning folk don't feel comfortable getting their news from a single source, or at least a source that takes itself too seriously. While a guy like Keith O is well-liked, internet comments about various segments that he does are usually split 50/50 as to whether or not he's a complete blowhard...even when he's accurate. That sort of condescending tone actually bothers some folks, and while I don't like to generalize, I think a larger portion of such folks lean left.
Then again, some say that everything outside of FNC and Laura Ingraham has a liberal slant (two sayings come to mind: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," and more importantly, "there's no accounting for taste").
The only reason anybody ever cared about "unbiased reporting" was because for a breif period in the 20th Century we had very few alternative outlets to go to if we personally found the reporting unreasonable.
Read some old newspaper articles. I'd say the 1930s at least but the further back you go the more obvious it becomes. The papers moralized, they took sides, they provided color commentary.
But note that the further back you go, the less places existed where people could get news. So what I would say is just that as time has gone on, a sub-genre of "orthodox" news emerged and solidified from within the larger category of non-fiction. Now combine: a traditional unwillingness to mix advertising with writing, with vague demographics, and people's decreasing willingness to pay a subscription fee, and you have the one segment of the media industry that is least well-positioned to keep up with the market.
supposedly "unbiased reporting" is not only unwelcome, it is morally reprehensible
I wouldn't go that far, but I do think that false objectivity can be a bad thing.
So the questions in my mind are, is all of this objectivity and separation from advertisers a legitimately special thing, or is it just a style that one takes on? How much of this is just the trappings of a genre, and how much of it is writers that are unwilling to compromise their integrity? And, once the market has its way, how much of that objectivity, real or affected, will remain?
Maybe this age of information is sort of like the turn of the century with respect to news...where news was sold on bustling streetcorners by children yelling out sensational headlines written by yellow journalists, headlines written simply to cause people to stop in their tracks.
Maybe flamebait articles are the yellow journalism of the 22nd century?:)
First: I do agree with the need for professional journalists.
Looking at that stuff, looking at, essentially, the conversation on the business side that newspapers are having with themselves—it made me realize something about the weakness of these institutions in the era of the Web that I had not understood before. Which is that the Chinese wall, right, the idea of advertisements as separate from the journalists, was successful enough and widespread enough and essentially honored in speech, if not always in action⦠that was a serious enough barrier that it actually kept the journalists themselves from thinking through their own business model. A lot of working journalists, and especially print journalists, are in the position of being sort of kept women. They don't really understand where the money comes from but, you know, their particular sugar daddy seems pretty flush, so they just never gave it much thought. And then one day the market crashes and they suddenly discover, "Wait a minute, we were a business? And our revenues had to exceed our expenses every year? Why wasn't I informed?"
He points out a possible irony in all this...traditional news, where the journalists are shielded from the sponsors, my end up faring worse than the lifestyle magazines and whatnot. It's the sponsors who pay the bills, after all.
In the end, if people are willing to read or watch these publications that don't maintain a line between content and advertising, then that's where everything is going to head, regardless of which approach promotes objectivity. Like an earlier reply seems to say, there are times when people are done the disservice of being given "both sides"-style objectivity theater instead of true objectivity.
I am not willing to accept increased regulation in the area of speech or press. Even if well-intentioned, telling people what they can and can't publish is thoroughly Un-American and IMO pretty evil. We're just going to have to see how it shakes out.
Who gets to decide what Christianity is supposed to be? You?
Several instances, but, ultimately, it's the Pope.
No, ultimately it's no one. I was asking a rhetorical question.
You see, the Church absolutely has no interrest whatsoever in getting involved in evolution.
You're not telling me anything I don't already know.
I was taking offense at the fact that this guy said he preferred fundamentalists to reasonable Christians. Clearly this is because they fit his bogeyman image of religious people. Which prompted the atheist card comment...not all of us are bigots when it comes to people of faith and I'd rather people didn't make it seem that way. Whatever you read into what I wrote, it wasn't what I actually wrote.
Taking their name and their religion and then doing as you please.
Who gets to decide what Christianity is supposed to be? You? I don't think so.
The oldest Christian church (the Catholics) have no beef with evolution.
Turn in your atheist card at the door. I don't want people like you to be in any way associated with people like me. I don't think I'm alone in that either.
Well, I read through that, and I don't consider still don't anything thoroughly debunked.
My spreadsheet
He says this a lot. It's not exactly confidence-inspiring. Owning a Prius doesn't make you a statistician.
Things like low-weight steel, large batteries, and hybrid drive trains will become the norm if we progress to cars like diesel plug-in hybrids and hopefully from there to all electric.
A big if, and in any case, it doesn't affect the here-and-now so much. If hybrid cars require more investment to be more efficient, let's absolutely make that investment, but let's be honest with consumers.
that the fancier the car, the more energy will be required to produce, maintain, and recycle it
Which he doesn't debunk, he agrees with.
The study contains its share of bias...Spinella has to be glad he got the results he did.
He could wear Ninja Turtles pajamas, too. There's no proof. When it comes to a study, bias isn't having an opinion, it's letting that opinion color your results. Which, if true, should be easy to detect and demonstrate.
If you own a Prius, relax. Because the Prius presently has high status, it has replaced a lot of other high-status cars that would have been even more energy intensive (lifetime and otherwise) and it also has some of the lowest emissions of any gas-powered car you can buy.
I like this. It's good news. It doesn't debunk much, but it's definitely a point in the hybrids' favor.
This study could have different effects...it could help kill hybrid technology
So is he arguing for intellectual dishonesty here?
He does, however, point out the fact that the data for the original study is kept under lock and key. I agree that that's highly suspicious.
This is getting too long, sorry. Look, I am not an automotive expert and I could be very very wrong about this. I was going off of what I had read and what I had heard from close friends who I trusted to be right about such things. It's just that what you posted doesn't qualify for me as a debunking. It's definitely another side to the story and raises a couple of good points, but a good amount of it is posturing and sloppy logic. You've certainly sparked my interest and I'll have to go out in search of more articles like that. It looked like there were some solid points along those lines in the comments to the article, which I haven't had time to read yet, but I definitely will.
That may be true, but you must understand that in a more formal setting the burden of proof would be on the scientist proposing the existence of such a cycle.
If we start actively trying to manipulate the climate, we are almost certain to shoot ourselves in the foot.
Pretty meaning fairly. Tom Waits is not capable of singing prettily.
As to whether it was a legitimate suit...it depends. If it was just singing gruff, that's one thing. If it was singing "the Tom Waits way" then maybe there's something to the thought of the guy who invented that getting something for it. It's not up to me to decide, though.
Van Morrison recently re-recorded Astral Weeks and released it. He did this because he didn't have control over the original material, so he was in a bad position when, say, a film studio wanted the rights to use a song, and he wanted to let them. This is fine, they're his songs. But imagine if it was the other way around?
All I was saying was that commercials, car commercials especially, have sound-alike songs all the time. And regardless of its legal implications, it is morally reprehensible. Worse than any act of "downloading piracy" or anything like that.
Not to be cruel, but "Tom Waits, Ozzy Osbourne, Jose Carreras, Vanessa Paradis, Freddie Mercury"...the fact that you claim to be able to mimic such a wide variety of voices (in different vocal ranges, no less) just sounds like a "jack of all trades, master of none" situation to me. If this guy sounded close enough to sue over, then it probably wasn't standup comic-level voice impersonation. It was probably damn close.
Slashdot Mirror
The 15 bucks or whatever is for the restricted version. I don't understand how you think that entitles you to a different license than the one you bought.
I'm not above pirating Windows either, but for a netbook, why bother?
Your understanding of the word right is way out of whack. You get what you pay for, the rest is stealing. If you're going to do it, do it, but don't act like it's justified.
Isn't it possible to have a service interact with the desktop?
Of course, if people do that en masse, it may lead to the breakdown of the nicely segregated user model that MS tried so hard to force lazy ISVs to actually support.
</massive speculation>
Since Microsoft has imposed an artificial limitation that was not previously present
On their product, that they sell. I understand the frustration, but not the sense of entitlement.
We have other options, after all.
To be honest, I do get hungry when I drink diet soda. I'm just super skeptical as a rule. I'd need to see it as part of a controlled study before I understood it to be an established effect that diet soda has. And again there is always the issue of correlation vs. causation. Who knows, maybe such a study exists, or maybe someday a causal relationship will be established.
It's fine as a rule of thumb. Also, I've never heard anyone say to me that it definitely had to come from a bottle. Obviously there's water in food, and anything that can rightly be called a liquid should count.
And none of this invalidates the actual statement, which was that too much water will flush out electrolytes.
Correlation does not imply lack of causation either
Speaking in general terms, the burden of proof is on the person trying to prove causation. If all you have is correlation then that's all you have.
and when plenty of people have made that particular shift without any other major lifestyle changes and then experienced the theorised consequences.
Are you saying that you have evidence of people becoming obese after drinking diet soda, in a controlled experiment? Because AFAIK these studies look at populations, and basically compare the two variables: diet soda drinking and weight. All you can prove with a study like that is correlation. You cannot get into talking about causation until you do an experimental study with a control group.
It really sounds like you're saying you have such data, and I'm going to have to call you out on that because that'd be shocking to me.
no positive impact whatsoever on obesity rates.
Statistics is that they don't necessarily apply to the individual, though. I lost 20 pounds recently, and while part of it was strict diet and exercise, part of it was cutting out crap like soda. But sometimes I want a soda, so I have diet soda. Technically I'm obese but my BMI is well on the way to merely overweight.
I have an alternate hypothesis about the diet soda statistic. Based on my own experience, if someone trying to lose weight isn't drinking only water, they might be doing it wrong. You have to get used to eating healthy and drinking healthy. For a while it seems like your are eating/living bland, but you get used to it and a healthy diet tastes normal while really rich foods taste really rich.
Maintaining weight is easy, and diet foods can be a help in that. But losing weight involves a lifestyle change that is torture at first but which gets easier with time. I used to drink a lot of sweetened stuff. Now it's mostly water, and I really enjoy drinking water all the time. Diet soda is like false hope. Anything in life worth having requires sacrifice, and giving someone soda that has no calories can be like telling them they don't have to sacrifice.
I did the math on an old Pentium floating point unit.
You young guys take note: when you love someone because you think he is better than you and insult those who criticise him, you're no better than the Mediaeval peasant who cheered as the Church burnt the heretic. Every post-Renaissance humanist pointed this out and it's no less true today.
Well, at least you didn't bring up the Nazis.
This "security through obscurity" approach is in dramatic contrast to Microsoft's.
It didn't used to be. But MS got their act together. Hopefully one day Apple will too.
Gnome and KDE desktops, with compositing enabled, are probably prettier than Mac OS in most respects
"LOL"
Apple does do that ridiculous cube effect when you switch users, so I guess there's some overlap. But most of the compiz-fusion effects are incredibly tacky and nothing I'd want to use day to day. They do wow people (like when you use only 2 virtual desktops and "flip" the screen) but things like the wobbly windows are very distracting. Overall, there's a lot to like but a lot of it is superfluous, and what I like about OS X is that it doesn't have a lot of crazy crap.
Apple is not in Microsoft's position. The majority of their customers trust them to put out a good product, want to experience the improvements, and so are willing to upgrade. Whether or not you think that trust is warranted is up to you. Certainly, not everyone upgrades right away, and depending on the software and hardware config, not everyone can. As with PCs, some people will go on using what shipped with their hardware and wait until they buy new hardware to use the newer OS revision.
Apple is not just the OS maker, they are the OEM. Maybe if the Dells of the world did a better job of providing Vista upgrade options and support, people would have had a reason to upgrade. But the increased hardware requirements made that less likely I think. Here again, OS X is different: the hardware requirements are not greatly increased from version to version, and the few snafus are minor, unlike the situation where Vista's most popular graphics card, Intel's GMA, was underpowered for at least a year.
A final reason why there is less fear about upgrading in that camp is that the point releases are spaced closer in time and they do not represent the large change that XP to Vista did. It's less of a gamble. (In fact, it's not a gamble at all if you keep good backups, especially before OS upgrades, but as always the PEBCAK.)
So, in short, what you call 'new and shiny' is always a given, and traditionally Mac users who want those new features are (a) willing to pay money for software (weird, right?) and (b) not afraid to do the point upgrade.
Honestly, the whole thing to me feels like OEM-done-right: they make a polished product and people are willing to buy it rather than be afraid of it. And I don't know about you, but performance and security improvements are definitely features in my book. Why so critical?
There's not much you can do to prevent the combination of a trojan and a user determined to get it running on his machine.
You almost have to have that sixth sense for dodgy websites or software, because it's not always like the password prompt comes from the wrong place...with at least some of the (few) Mac trojans out there, they're just packaged as disk image files with installers inside, like everything else. For those people, anti-virus is the best option, I suppose.
We can hope that the security "culture" of having people sudo for admin tasks will hold back the floodgates of viruses that Windows has seen, but there's no technical basis for that.
OTOH, the world may never see another computer monoculture like it had with Wintel. As an agriculture monoculture, PCs were an easy infection target because of their uniformity and number. I wonder if, in an imaginary world where Win, Mac & Linux were split 30/30/30, you would still see 1/3 of the Windows malware? Hopefully not. Hopefully it'd be less.
They could always do an off-the-record search, get the right inodes (or whatever, depending on fs) and then do another pass under strict enough conditions to allow it to be evidence, but with the knowledge of where to look.
Maybe someone with more knowledge will say this isn't allowed but I was under the impression that it's not that the forensics expert isn't really banned from scanning the drive using a particular tool, it's just that the evidence has to meet certain strict requirements.
Sort of like doing the problem on your calculator and then going back and showing the steps once you know you've got it right :)
Stop giving them ideas.
No, seriously, why?
Are children like some sort of disease that need to be tracked? Of what use is it to these "childcare professionals" to know the name of every child in the UK?
Over time this is going to be a 1:1 census.
What are the benefits of this that outweigh the severe risk of having all of that data in one place? It seems like once a week there's an article on here about some huge privacy violation that the UK is already finished with. And this...I don't know anymore. It's just absurd at this point.
If Microsoft can have an OS monopoly with a 'mere' 90% of the market, I think we can safely call the conservative TV & talk radio business a monopoly.
Call it trolling if you will but I think that there is something to the idea that liberal-leaning folk don't feel comfortable getting their news from a single source, or at least a source that takes itself too seriously. While a guy like Keith O is well-liked, internet comments about various segments that he does are usually split 50/50 as to whether or not he's a complete blowhard...even when he's accurate. That sort of condescending tone actually bothers some folks, and while I don't like to generalize, I think a larger portion of such folks lean left.
Then again, some say that everything outside of FNC and Laura Ingraham has a liberal slant (two sayings come to mind: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," and more importantly, "there's no accounting for taste").
You know what? Not only does the right have a near-monopoly on echo chamber news, but they actually reinterpret satire of that news to be sincere.
Now I know you're just kidding around. In order to listen to Rush you have to enjoy hearing foul stereotypes...
The only reason anybody ever cared about "unbiased reporting" was because for a breif period in the 20th Century we had very few alternative outlets to go to if we personally found the reporting unreasonable.
Read some old newspaper articles. I'd say the 1930s at least but the further back you go the more obvious it becomes. The papers moralized, they took sides, they provided color commentary.
But note that the further back you go, the less places existed where people could get news. So what I would say is just that as time has gone on, a sub-genre of "orthodox" news emerged and solidified from within the larger category of non-fiction. Now combine: a traditional unwillingness to mix advertising with writing, with vague demographics, and people's decreasing willingness to pay a subscription fee, and you have the one segment of the media industry that is least well-positioned to keep up with the market.
supposedly "unbiased reporting" is not only unwelcome, it is morally reprehensible
I wouldn't go that far, but I do think that false objectivity can be a bad thing.
So the questions in my mind are, is all of this objectivity and separation from advertisers a legitimately special thing, or is it just a style that one takes on? How much of this is just the trappings of a genre, and how much of it is writers that are unwilling to compromise their integrity? And, once the market has its way, how much of that objectivity, real or affected, will remain?
Maybe this age of information is sort of like the turn of the century with respect to news...where news was sold on bustling streetcorners by children yelling out sensational headlines written by yellow journalists, headlines written simply to cause people to stop in their tracks.
Maybe flamebait articles are the yellow journalism of the 22nd century? :)
First: I do agree with the need for professional journalists.
Looking at that stuff, looking at, essentially, the conversation on the business side that newspapers are having with themselves—it made me realize something about the weakness of these institutions in the era of the Web that I had not understood before. Which is that the Chinese wall, right, the idea of advertisements as separate from the journalists, was successful enough and widespread enough and essentially honored in speech, if not always in action⦠that was a serious enough barrier that it actually kept the journalists themselves from thinking through their own business model. A lot of working journalists, and especially print journalists, are in the position of being sort of kept women. They don't really understand where the money comes from but, you know, their particular sugar daddy seems pretty flush, so they just never gave it much thought. And then one day the market crashes and they suddenly discover, "Wait a minute, we were a business? And our revenues had to exceed our expenses every year? Why wasn't I informed?"
http://www.cjr.org/overload/interview_with_clay_shirky_par_1.php?page=3
He points out a possible irony in all this...traditional news, where the journalists are shielded from the sponsors, my end up faring worse than the lifestyle magazines and whatnot. It's the sponsors who pay the bills, after all.
In the end, if people are willing to read or watch these publications that don't maintain a line between content and advertising, then that's where everything is going to head, regardless of which approach promotes objectivity. Like an earlier reply seems to say, there are times when people are done the disservice of being given "both sides"-style objectivity theater instead of true objectivity.
I am not willing to accept increased regulation in the area of speech or press. Even if well-intentioned, telling people what they can and can't publish is thoroughly Un-American and IMO pretty evil. We're just going to have to see how it shakes out.
The Beatles had a hand in it too?
Who gets to decide what Christianity is supposed to be? You?
Several instances, but, ultimately, it's the Pope.
No, ultimately it's no one. I was asking a rhetorical question.
You see, the Church absolutely has no interrest whatsoever in getting involved in evolution.
You're not telling me anything I don't already know.
I was taking offense at the fact that this guy said he preferred fundamentalists to reasonable Christians. Clearly this is because they fit his bogeyman image of religious people. Which prompted the atheist card comment...not all of us are bigots when it comes to people of faith and I'd rather people didn't make it seem that way. Whatever you read into what I wrote, it wasn't what I actually wrote.
Taking their name and their religion and then doing as you please.
Who gets to decide what Christianity is supposed to be? You? I don't think so.
The oldest Christian church (the Catholics) have no beef with evolution.
Turn in your atheist card at the door. I don't want people like you to be in any way associated with people like me. I don't think I'm alone in that either.
Well, I read through that, and I don't consider still don't anything thoroughly debunked.
My spreadsheet
He says this a lot. It's not exactly confidence-inspiring. Owning a Prius doesn't make you a statistician.
Things like low-weight steel, large batteries, and hybrid drive trains will become the norm if we progress to cars like diesel plug-in hybrids and hopefully from there to all electric.
A big if, and in any case, it doesn't affect the here-and-now so much. If hybrid cars require more investment to be more efficient, let's absolutely make that investment, but let's be honest with consumers.
that the fancier the car, the more energy will be required to produce, maintain, and recycle it
Which he doesn't debunk, he agrees with.
The study contains its share of bias...Spinella has to be glad he got the results he did.
He could wear Ninja Turtles pajamas, too. There's no proof. When it comes to a study, bias isn't having an opinion, it's letting that opinion color your results. Which, if true, should be easy to detect and demonstrate.
If you own a Prius, relax. Because the Prius presently has high status, it has replaced a lot of other high-status cars that would have been even more energy intensive (lifetime and otherwise) and it also has some of the lowest emissions of any gas-powered car you can buy.
I like this. It's good news. It doesn't debunk much, but it's definitely a point in the hybrids' favor.
This study could have different effects...it could help kill hybrid technology
So is he arguing for intellectual dishonesty here?
He does, however, point out the fact that the data for the original study is kept under lock and key. I agree that that's highly suspicious.
This is getting too long, sorry. Look, I am not an automotive expert and I could be very very wrong about this. I was going off of what I had read and what I had heard from close friends who I trusted to be right about such things. It's just that what you posted doesn't qualify for me as a debunking. It's definitely another side to the story and raises a couple of good points, but a good amount of it is posturing and sloppy logic. You've certainly sparked my interest and I'll have to go out in search of more articles like that. It looked like there were some solid points along those lines in the comments to the article, which I haven't had time to read yet, but I definitely will.
That may be true, but you must understand that in a more formal setting the burden of proof would be on the scientist proposing the existence of such a cycle.
If we start actively trying to manipulate the climate, we are almost certain to shoot ourselves in the foot.
Completely agree.
Pretty meaning fairly. Tom Waits is not capable of singing prettily.
As to whether it was a legitimate suit...it depends. If it was just singing gruff, that's one thing. If it was singing "the Tom Waits way" then maybe there's something to the thought of the guy who invented that getting something for it. It's not up to me to decide, though.
Van Morrison recently re-recorded Astral Weeks and released it. He did this because he didn't have control over the original material, so he was in a bad position when, say, a film studio wanted the rights to use a song, and he wanted to let them. This is fine, they're his songs. But imagine if it was the other way around?
All I was saying was that commercials, car commercials especially, have sound-alike songs all the time. And regardless of its legal implications, it is morally reprehensible. Worse than any act of "downloading piracy" or anything like that.
Not to be cruel, but "Tom Waits, Ozzy Osbourne, Jose Carreras, Vanessa Paradis, Freddie Mercury"...the fact that you claim to be able to mimic such a wide variety of voices (in different vocal ranges, no less) just sounds like a "jack of all trades, master of none" situation to me. If this guy sounded close enough to sue over, then it probably wasn't standup comic-level voice impersonation. It was probably damn close.