I'll step it up one for you: Why would you need to own the car? AS long as a car is there when you need it. you could have a logistic system of cars where they are pretty much always available.
no. A geek would take pictures and show people make wild statements he assumes is science. A nerd would go through his poo, retrieve and do a detail write up with before and after pictures. The giver sold engineering idea for improvement... then talk about it over dinner with their kids.
Never in any business meeting I have been in has anyone ever said "Sales are flatlined" The all say "Sales are flat." Which makes sense since it's fewer sylLAbles
"Moore's Law, otoh, has kept pretty well " no it has not. If it had, I could get a CPU with 4 times the transistors for the same cost of a CPU I both 4 months ago. While CPUs will get more powerful, Moore's law is dead, as is David House performance matrix.(Double in performance every 18 months)
I include both because many people confuse the two. And by 'Confuse the two' I mean have no fucking idea what they are talking about.
The reason has to do with Fabs and leakage. Leakage, I believe, is solvable. Fab expense for sub 10nm? A fuck ton for something most people don't need. Computer power is outstripping nearly all software. Yes, there are some exceptions, high end animation and video. But that level is pretty much a specialty field. And none of this even begins to address bandwidth.
I depends on if you count shipments to channels, or shipments to users, or both in your numbers. Also worth noting the some manufactures who make more computers(PC and min notebooks) then Apple where left off the list.
"A PC built today is actually a lot better than one from five years ago, especially if you spend the same money." not really. That statement was perfectly true until about 2007. In fact, to get onto an equivalent place on the curve cast more money now, for a variety of reasons. CPU prices aren't declining likwe they used to, Manufacturing issues over seas.
Anecdote: 4 years ago I bought a cutting edge PC. Top CPU and RAM. 800 dollars. 9I build them myself, natch) Noew, 1500 min.
Also, I cans till play everything I get on steam, and CPU wise it runs fine. I Do upgrade my video card every 2 years.
caveat: I don't do SLI, and the vid card is two steps down from the top. 600 for a video card? no thanks.
" If the Roman Warm Period was natural and without additional CO2, why cannot the recent warming also be natural as well?" There can be more the one reason for a rise in temperature. The non CO2 ideas have been proven to be wrong. The current increase is not localized, as the info in the study was. Look at the data, 1876-2006 shows an increase in spite of natural cycle trending down. Look at how sharp the last 150 years as been compared to the Roman increase.
1. We've killed a 2000 year cooling trend in 150, which would be alarming We have proof of number one.
2. We are naturally warming and are still in the bounds of natural variability. Warming is current contrary to other cycles.
"To me, the evidence supports 2 better than 1. " You would be incorrect. This idea was a valid one in 1970, not anymore. The natural phenomena do not account for any of the current increase. It's not like they haven't spent 100 years ruling out natural reasons. Sun activity? nope. Cascade changes? nope. Solar wind? Nope. ON and on. They don't hold up. And we know CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know we are putting billions of tons into the atmosphere every year. We no it stays in the atmosphere for a very long time.
Add to all the the consensus of scientist of whom this is their area of expertise. The typical response to that is stupid conspiracy theories, and when you chase an idea and all there is is a stupid conspiracy to support it,. you know it's false.
Scientific evidence supports it?? check. Agreement among the experts? Check. Common sense application empirical data? Check.
So, yea it's real.
one data point is not a trend. There ar emany reason for no green house incread and decreas in data.
The trend is temperature are rising on top of 'normal' cycles.
This person clearly doesn't understand trends, or global warming for that matter. IT's a rant using scare words. Look at hos chart, it's laughable. At the period of man caused green house global warming,. note the sharp increase? No one, regardless of your "position" should use this article is evidences. haha. the red dash stop right where is should rise sharply.
The only thing that data(from the actual report, not the dumb ass article) Is that the temperature in going up when natural cycles are cooling. IN the paper, it shows a clear increase in the 1876-2006 chart. one the writer leaves out. It's even more data the supports Man Made global warming. However the article is so bad, I would never link to it even if it supported my belief that I have the worlds largest penis.
Set aside the "debate". Put that away. This article is BAD. don't link to it as evidence because you will be destroyed by any rational thinking person. Read the paper, and if you understand it use it to form and argument.
Alls that proves is that it's not as bad as people on/. seem to think it is. Which implies/. derives tis opinion from sensational headlines and shaky summaries
Slashdot Mirror
I'll step it up one for you:
Why would you need to own the car? AS long as a car is there when you need it. you could have a logistic system of cars where they are pretty much always available.
Granted that would be 3 generations a way.
no. A geek would take pictures and show people make wild statements he assumes is science.
A nerd would go through his poo, retrieve and do a detail write up with before and after pictures. The giver sold engineering idea for improvement... then talk about it over dinner with their kids.
Mountain Dew also has caffeine. heh
Never in any business meeting I have been in has anyone ever said "Sales are flatlined"
The all say "Sales are flat."
Which makes sense since it's fewer sylLAbles
Granted my sample size is small.
"never can they do TWO good windows releases in a row"
98 then 2000.
And 8 is fucking awesome, I have no idea what your whine is about there.
Unless you have a mouse in your pocket, keep the "We" to yourself.
Yeah, subtract iDevices and only leave their PC in the numbers..oh, not so well now, is it?
"Or Tablets (which are not PCs)"
On what metric is a tablet not a personal computer?
"Moore's Law, otoh, has kept pretty well "
no it has not. If it had, I could get a CPU with 4 times the transistors for the same cost of a CPU I both 4 months ago.
While CPUs will get more powerful, Moore's law is dead, as is David House performance matrix.(Double in performance every 18 months)
I include both because many people confuse the two. And by 'Confuse the two' I mean have no fucking idea what they are talking about.
The reason has to do with Fabs and leakage. Leakage, I believe, is solvable. Fab expense for sub 10nm? A fuck ton for something most people don't need. Computer power is outstripping nearly all software. Yes, there are some exceptions, high end animation and video. But that level is pretty much a specialty field. And none of this even begins to address bandwidth.
" if you really want to downgrade to that. "
Just to let you know: You're a troll and a douche bag.
They aren't up
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/07/11/apples-mac-sales-fell-idc-or-grew-gartner-last-quarter/
I depends on if you count shipments to channels, or shipments to users, or both in your numbers.
Also worth noting the some manufactures who make more computers(PC and min notebooks) then Apple where left off the list.
good luck going to any main stream website on a computer and browser from 1997.
"A PC built today is actually a lot better than one from five years ago, especially if you spend the same money."
not really.
That statement was perfectly true until about 2007.
In fact, to get onto an equivalent place on the curve cast more money now, for a variety of reasons. CPU prices aren't declining likwe they used to, Manufacturing issues over seas.
Anecdote:
4 years ago I bought a cutting edge PC. Top CPU and RAM. 800 dollars. 9I build them myself, natch)
Noew, 1500 min.
Also, I cans till play everything I get on steam, and CPU wise it runs fine. I Do upgrade my video card every 2 years.
caveat:
I don't do SLI, and the vid card is two steps down from the top. 600 for a video card? no thanks.
" If the Roman Warm Period was natural and without additional CO2, why cannot the recent warming also be natural as well?"
There can be more the one reason for a rise in temperature.
The non CO2 ideas have been proven to be wrong.
The current increase is not localized, as the info in the study was.
Look at the data, 1876-2006 shows an increase in spite of natural cycle trending down.
Look at how sharp the last 150 years as been compared to the Roman increase.
1. We've killed a 2000 year cooling trend in 150, which would be alarming
We have proof of number one.
2. We are naturally warming and are still in the bounds of natural variability.
Warming is current contrary to other cycles.
"To me, the evidence supports 2 better than 1. "
You would be incorrect. This idea was a valid one in 1970, not anymore. The natural phenomena do not account for any of the current increase. It's not like they haven't spent 100 years ruling out natural reasons.
Sun activity? nope. Cascade changes? nope. Solar wind? Nope. ON and on. They don't hold up. And we know CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know we are putting billions of tons into the atmosphere every year. We no it stays in the atmosphere for a very long time.
Add to all the the consensus of scientist of whom this is their area of expertise. The typical response to that is stupid conspiracy theories, and when you chase an idea and all there is is a stupid conspiracy to support it,. you know it's false.
Scientific evidence supports it?? check.
Agreement among the experts? Check.
Common sense application empirical data? Check.
So, yea it's real.
"It lacks many Joe-reader explanations. I have to look-up three words in every sentence."
Science, it requires mad skill you don't have.
It YOU that is the problem, not the paper.
I am assuming you mean the actual paper:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1589.html
Not the stupid article in the register.
one data point is not a trend. There ar emany reason for no green house incread and decreas in data.
The trend is temperature are rising on top of 'normal' cycles.
This person clearly doesn't understand trends, or global warming for that matter.
IT's a rant using scare words. Look at hos chart, it's laughable. At the period of man caused green house global warming,. note the sharp increase?
No one, regardless of your "position" should use this article is evidences.
haha. the red dash stop right where is should rise sharply.
The only thing that data(from the actual report, not the dumb ass article) Is that the temperature in going up when natural cycles are cooling.
IN the paper, it shows a clear increase in the 1876-2006 chart. one the writer leaves out.
It's even more data the supports Man Made global warming. However the article is so bad, I would never link to it even if it supported my belief that I have the worlds largest penis.
Set aside the "debate". Put that away. This article is BAD. don't link to it as evidence because you will be destroyed by any rational thinking person. Read the paper, and if you understand it use it to form and argument.
Because they want it both ways, AND streaming isn't free especially the bandwidth they would need.
Which means diddly squat.
In court is where it will be decided.
As long as they don't raise the prices of peoples current contract, there really isn't any cause for the consumers to sue.
If they raise it mid contract, that's a different issue.
Hey now, don't put that guys douche baggery on to liberals.
Comcast? BFD. They don't own the content, they are still behooven to their masters: Viacom et. al.
Viacom wants another billion from direct TV to play reruns.
Netflix sucks. Viacom, and other content owners, keep changing the amounts and netflix keeps loosing content.
Tat's exactly what direct TV wants to do. Viacom won't sell it to them that way.
wanted another billion dollar for direct TV to show their reruns. Reruns available elsewhere for less.
Alls that proves is that it's not as bad as people on /. seem to think it is. /. derives tis opinion from sensational headlines and shaky summaries
Which implies
Give me some arguments no how letting people on without any screening is a better alternative.
Be sure to account for the aircraft bombing and hijacking that took place prior to screenings.