As far as they're concerned, the world of science is part of a vast international communist conspiracy to make everyone think the world is round. The crisis is the only thing they'll accept as proof that they needed to do this.
The 90% of scientists you claim are part of this vast international conspiracy get paid the same no matter what their research shows. By contrast, the tiny number of climate skeptics you give credence to are all paid by people who stand to lose billions of dollars depending on the result of the research. Which do you think is more likely to misrepresent the data?
As for peer review, now is a good time to bring up the nature of peer review particularly as it pertains to climate science. Peer review is not the end-all be-all of testing the validity of research. Too many people think that any research that has been peer-reviewed can be treated as true or likely to be true, but peer review is only the beginning of the process of verifying/testing the results of a particular research.
A good example is that notorious and oft-cited research by climate skeptic hero Ross McKitrick. He is the most prominent and most-cited scientist of the climate skeptic crowd, and one of the few to be published in proper peer-reviewed journals. One of his research papers made it through the peer-review process and was published in a reputable journal (which is why right wingers still cite this study to this day). After it was published, someone tried to duplicate his results and found that he got his conclusions backwards because he got degrees and radians mixed up in his calculations. While this "mistake" is pretty staggering, the peer review process did not and could not catch an error of that nature.
...yet somehow, people complain about this aspect of solar energy never seem to want to bring up the fact that nuclear energy is far more dependent on government help for far more years? Solar becomes self-sustaining as the cost of fossil fuels rises, but I don't think nuclear will ever be economically viable without government help.
If having less government automagically makes things better, then Somalia must be the best place on Earth. Quite frankly, if you rightists have your way, America will become largely indistinguishable from third world nations like Somalia, so why go through all the effort of destroying America when your ideal society already exists elsewhere in the world?
Why should Paris Hilton's pet chihuahua suffer wearing cheaper jewelery just because some undeserving peasant wants to go to school, or doesn't want his child to starve, or doesn't want to drown in a flood? If peasants really want those things, they can get them for themselves! Stop punishing the chihuahua just because you're a lazy bum who thinks the government has the right to force innocent corporations to not poison toddlers! Commies! you're all a buncha commies! [/conservolibertarianstrawman]
The guy is retarded, and thus less capable of making or being responsible for decisions. Since you seem to be unable to grasp why it would be a bad idea to execute retarded people, I think the world would be better off without you. Society deserves to rid itself of people like you.
In addition to what you said, USB devices work much better under Windows XP than Windows 2000, but that is because Windows XP came with more and better drivers, not because of radical changes to the under-the-hood crap.
Microsoft seems to follow a similar pattern to Intel (every other release involves minor architecture changes), they just break the pattern more often
Windows 95 ==> Windows 98, Windows 98SE, Windows ME
Clearly the robots are laying the groundwork for the Robot Revolution as we speak. They'll just let the radiation kill all the humans on board while the floating robospheres of death laugh mechanically at all the photons that pass harmlessly through them. One shudders to think what the robospheres could do with a space station and several human corpses in low Earth orbit!
The conservatives and libertarians passed laws to give corporations tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas, and they have filibustered every attempt the Democrats made at ending the whole rewarding-companies-for-putting-Americans-out-of-work thing. Not only would this not "go down good with politicos", there's a fair chance that you'll be accused of being a traitor and experience the joy of being flooded with anonymous death threats from freepers and the like.
The Democrats on the other hand would be too busy apologizing to the Republicans for your existence and seeking new ways to appease them to bother considering your idea.
Every time a Democrat tries to do something about the corruption and fraud committed by military contractors, they get accused of treason loudly by our "liberal media" and the usual right wing blowhards until they get run out of office. What did you think would be the net result of making military contractors immune to oversight? Was the Magic of the Free Market supposed to fix this on its own?
The best solution to the 2 party system is instant run-off voting. Most people seem to think we can get rid of the 2 party system by voting for third parties, and this has never worked in American history. In practice what happens is that you temporarily get three parties until one of the three parties dies off, then you're right back where you started: a 2 party system.
The system itself needs to be altered. This cannot be achieved through mere voting.
If his arguments truly have no merit, then it won't make a splash in the tech press. People will simply blow him off as a disgruntled employee.
So this is only bad if you feel that loyalty is more important than producing a good product.
...but I seem to recall a lot of reports from the aftermath of the 'quake commenting on the fact that the Internet was often the only utility still working for people.
Having a market dominated by a smaller number of larger companies is the ideal capitalist system according to rightist ideology. This is why they like mergers and hate it when antitrust laws are enforced. In this way, the few remaining companies don't have to deal with as much of that pesky "competition" thing, and through economies of scale they can deliver better goods for less money. At least, that's the excuses libertarians and conservatives usually give me.
This is also part of the reason why I argue that they are not in fact capitalists, but rather neo-feudalists.
Here's a hint: the universities and research agencies that employ most normal scientists get the same amount of money regardless of the findings on anthropogenic climate change. The oil companies who employ all of the prominent ACC skeptics stand to lose billions of dollars if the findings are not a certain way.
Let's put it another way. Acme Pharmaceuticals wants to start selling a new drug. Scientists from universities find that the drug is not safe. Scientists employed by Acme Pharmaceuticals find that the drug is perfectly safe. Given these two pieces of information, would you give this new drug to your children?
This constant "the other side is exactly as bad" argument from conservatives and libertarians is laughable in almost every instance it is used.
I'm no Microsoft zombie, but LINUX should have been stomping on Microsoft all along in this category, and there really isn't much excuse for this. Sometimes the LINUX camp is more insular, defensive, and partisan than Apple folk.
It seems to me that once they have this technology in place, it would be a very simple matter to re-purpose it, to, say, provide restricted search results in China based on Chinese government censorship, provide restricted search results in Iran based on what the Iranian government wants censored, or produce a special "evangelical" search page that only produces pages friendly to creationism, Biblical literalism, etc.
Maybe I'm just being paranoid, but I think such a tool could be used for things that are counterproductive to the very things that make the Internet the most powerful force for democratization we've seen since the invention of the movable type printing press.
The Iraq war has really illuminated the incredible level of fraud by contractors. If we can spend millions to Haliburton to deliver "sailboat fuel" around Iraq (really they were driving empty trucks around and charging the taxpayer), then suddenly a $20,000 hammer makes a lot more sense.
Are you [bad word] kidding me? In the process of creating a permanently unemployable underclass? As in present progressive tense? No, you should use the past tense. Try "have created" instead.
The conservatives and libertarians threw much of our rights under the bus in order to elect "tough on crime" candidates. Not only did this undermine our constitutional rights and create a giant prison industry that rivals the military industrial complex (why didn't anyone hold their feet to the fire for massively expanding government while campaigning as the "small government" crowd?), but creating a permanently unemployable underclass was the whole [bad word] point.
Conservative/libertarian economic philosophy has been undermining the middle class since the days of Reagan. One of the ways conservatives and libertarians have been able to mask this fact was by transferring large numbers of the working poor into prison, thus reducing job-seeking competition for people falling from the middle class into the upper reaches of the working poor. Without this part of the strategy, those riots you see in Wisconsin, Michigan and other places would have started happening a long time ago.
C'mon, guys. Pay attention. The NYP has about as much credibility as your average supermarket gossip rag. That's not to say that everything they say is wrong, but if they're your only source to a story don't put much stock in it.
Slashdot Mirror
As far as they're concerned, the world of science is part of a vast international communist conspiracy to make everyone think the world is round. The crisis is the only thing they'll accept as proof that they needed to do this.
The 90% of scientists you claim are part of this vast international conspiracy get paid the same no matter what their research shows. By contrast, the tiny number of climate skeptics you give credence to are all paid by people who stand to lose billions of dollars depending on the result of the research. Which do you think is more likely to misrepresent the data?
As for peer review, now is a good time to bring up the nature of peer review particularly as it pertains to climate science. Peer review is not the end-all be-all of testing the validity of research. Too many people think that any research that has been peer-reviewed can be treated as true or likely to be true, but peer review is only the beginning of the process of verifying/testing the results of a particular research.
A good example is that notorious and oft-cited research by climate skeptic hero Ross McKitrick. He is the most prominent and most-cited scientist of the climate skeptic crowd, and one of the few to be published in proper peer-reviewed journals. One of his research papers made it through the peer-review process and was published in a reputable journal (which is why right wingers still cite this study to this day). After it was published, someone tried to duplicate his results and found that he got his conclusions backwards because he got degrees and radians mixed up in his calculations. While this "mistake" is pretty staggering, the peer review process did not and could not catch an error of that nature.
...yet somehow, people complain about this aspect of solar energy never seem to want to bring up the fact that nuclear energy is far more dependent on government help for far more years? Solar becomes self-sustaining as the cost of fossil fuels rises, but I don't think nuclear will ever be economically viable without government help.
If having less government automagically makes things better, then Somalia must be the best place on Earth. Quite frankly, if you rightists have your way, America will become largely indistinguishable from third world nations like Somalia, so why go through all the effort of destroying America when your ideal society already exists elsewhere in the world?
Why should Paris Hilton's pet chihuahua suffer wearing cheaper jewelery just because some undeserving peasant wants to go to school, or doesn't want his child to starve, or doesn't want to drown in a flood? If peasants really want those things, they can get them for themselves! Stop punishing the chihuahua just because you're a lazy bum who thinks the government has the right to force innocent corporations to not poison toddlers! Commies! you're all a buncha commies! [/conservolibertarianstrawman]
The guy is retarded, and thus less capable of making or being responsible for decisions. Since you seem to be unable to grasp why it would be a bad idea to execute retarded people, I think the world would be better off without you. Society deserves to rid itself of people like you.
In addition to what you said, USB devices work much better under Windows XP than Windows 2000, but that is because Windows XP came with more and better drivers, not because of radical changes to the under-the-hood crap.
Microsoft seems to follow a similar pattern to Intel (every other release involves minor architecture changes), they just break the pattern more often
Clearly the robots are laying the groundwork for the Robot Revolution as we speak. They'll just let the radiation kill all the humans on board while the floating robospheres of death laugh mechanically at all the photons that pass harmlessly through them. One shudders to think what the robospheres could do with a space station and several human corpses in low Earth orbit!
The robots aren't doing anything important. The 386 chips are probably in something a little more critical than a floating robot inventory-taker.
The conservatives and libertarians passed laws to give corporations tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas, and they have filibustered every attempt the Democrats made at ending the whole rewarding-companies-for-putting-Americans-out-of-work thing. Not only would this not "go down good with politicos", there's a fair chance that you'll be accused of being a traitor and experience the joy of being flooded with anonymous death threats from freepers and the like.
The Democrats on the other hand would be too busy apologizing to the Republicans for your existence and seeking new ways to appease them to bother considering your idea.
Hint: between Obama and Darth Jar-Jar, one of them publicly admitted to committing war crimes during press conferences.
Every time a Democrat tries to do something about the corruption and fraud committed by military contractors, they get accused of treason loudly by our "liberal media" and the usual right wing blowhards until they get run out of office. What did you think would be the net result of making military contractors immune to oversight? Was the Magic of the Free Market supposed to fix this on its own?
The best solution to the 2 party system is instant run-off voting. Most people seem to think we can get rid of the 2 party system by voting for third parties, and this has never worked in American history. In practice what happens is that you temporarily get three parties until one of the three parties dies off, then you're right back where you started: a 2 party system.
The system itself needs to be altered. This cannot be achieved through mere voting.
If his arguments truly have no merit, then it won't make a splash in the tech press. People will simply blow him off as a disgruntled employee. So this is only bad if you feel that loyalty is more important than producing a good product.
...but I seem to recall a lot of reports from the aftermath of the 'quake commenting on the fact that the Internet was often the only utility still working for people.
Having a market dominated by a smaller number of larger companies is the ideal capitalist system according to rightist ideology. This is why they like mergers and hate it when antitrust laws are enforced. In this way, the few remaining companies don't have to deal with as much of that pesky "competition" thing, and through economies of scale they can deliver better goods for less money. At least, that's the excuses libertarians and conservatives usually give me.
This is also part of the reason why I argue that they are not in fact capitalists, but rather neo-feudalists.
Here's a hint: the universities and research agencies that employ most normal scientists get the same amount of money regardless of the findings on anthropogenic climate change. The oil companies who employ all of the prominent ACC skeptics stand to lose billions of dollars if the findings are not a certain way.
Let's put it another way. Acme Pharmaceuticals wants to start selling a new drug. Scientists from universities find that the drug is not safe. Scientists employed by Acme Pharmaceuticals find that the drug is perfectly safe. Given these two pieces of information, would you give this new drug to your children?
This constant "the other side is exactly as bad" argument from conservatives and libertarians is laughable in almost every instance it is used.
I'm no Microsoft zombie, but LINUX should have been stomping on Microsoft all along in this category, and there really isn't much excuse for this. Sometimes the LINUX camp is more insular, defensive, and partisan than Apple folk.
What is relevant is whether or not he had permission to use that code, which he obviously did not.
It seems to me that once they have this technology in place, it would be a very simple matter to re-purpose it, to, say, provide restricted search results in China based on Chinese government censorship, provide restricted search results in Iran based on what the Iranian government wants censored, or produce a special "evangelical" search page that only produces pages friendly to creationism, Biblical literalism, etc.
Maybe I'm just being paranoid, but I think such a tool could be used for things that are counterproductive to the very things that make the Internet the most powerful force for democratization we've seen since the invention of the movable type printing press.
The Iraq war has really illuminated the incredible level of fraud by contractors. If we can spend millions to Haliburton to deliver "sailboat fuel" around Iraq (really they were driving empty trucks around and charging the taxpayer), then suddenly a $20,000 hammer makes a lot more sense.
Are you [bad word] kidding me? In the process of creating a permanently unemployable underclass? As in present progressive tense? No, you should use the past tense. Try "have created" instead.
The conservatives and libertarians threw much of our rights under the bus in order to elect "tough on crime" candidates. Not only did this undermine our constitutional rights and create a giant prison industry that rivals the military industrial complex (why didn't anyone hold their feet to the fire for massively expanding government while campaigning as the "small government" crowd?), but creating a permanently unemployable underclass was the whole [bad word] point.
Conservative/libertarian economic philosophy has been undermining the middle class since the days of Reagan. One of the ways conservatives and libertarians have been able to mask this fact was by transferring large numbers of the working poor into prison, thus reducing job-seeking competition for people falling from the middle class into the upper reaches of the working poor. Without this part of the strategy, those riots you see in Wisconsin, Michigan and other places would have started happening a long time ago.
C'mon, guys. Pay attention. The NYP has about as much credibility as your average supermarket gossip rag. That's not to say that everything they say is wrong, but if they're your only source to a story don't put much stock in it.
I would chide you for being pedantic, but pot... kettle... yeah.
Unfortunately, such a determination is always speculative because companies are usually not up-front about why top level executives leave.