Yeah, I saw that when googling around (I also saw some that suggested it had to be Islamists, with fairly good reason), but the "40 year old white male" seems to be a description coming from the police, whereas Moryath needs to prove that it came "at the urging of the Obama administration" as he claimed. AFAIK, this is untrue.
The point was, the description was off-base, and it was off-base on wishful thinking from certain media personalities and Obama administration officials who were hoping to tie the situation to "anti-Obama sentiment."
If you didn't make it up, you should be able to dig up a source or at least some credible evidence for the truth of your statement. That's got nothing to do with my psychology, nor with the colour of my nose.
And you know this because... ??? No, you don't know at all, but make things up to suit your evident anti-Muslim agenda.
At least one photo of the bomber was released before he was caught. It was vague and grainy, and there's no chance that it was the best picture of him from a place so full of surveillance cameras as Times Square. So why did the police release only useless photos to the press? In the hope that he wasn't caught, so that the Obama administration could blame whitey, or perhaps rather because the police wanted to catch a possibly dangerous terrorist without public interference, and without suspicion heaped on every somewhat Semitic-looking American?
Actually, I was referring to yours, with your protesting against the description of the Times Square bomb guy being described as a "40 year old white male", as if a Taliban can't be white-skinned.
Since your comment only pretends to be about information but really is about brown people, I think it exemplifies perfectly how information becomes distraction.
The heat trapped by cats is energy the cats don't have to convert from food they eat, i.e. energy trapped in plants and then in animals eating the plants. The heat trapped by CO2 from fossil carbon wouldn't be absorbed in the atmosphere otherwise. QED, you're an idiot.
I already pointed out that there is strong evidence that fossil carbon is the source of the CO2 due to the fact that it lacks certain isotopes that belong to atmospheric carbon. I also said CO2 absorbs energy from infrared light. It's in the comment you're replying to. And then you go on to say: "The question, however, is what can be attributed as the source, what is the cause and what are the consequences of that CO2 rising?"
No wonder you didn't find the algorithms you were looking for: you can't read.
As I pointed out, there is no scepticism in osgeek's AGW denialism. It's simply ideology. Concluding from "this will be too expensive" to "this can't be happening" has nothing to do with scientific scepticism at all, and you make no argument at all yourself. I didn't conflate anything: osgeek isn't a sceptic, he's a denialist.
No, you don't. If you did, you'd already know that the CO2 levels are rising (measurable, and an indisputable empirical fact), that CO2 absorbs more energy from infrared light than most other atmospheric gasses (also a verified fact) and that the CO2 almost certainly comes from the burning of fossil fuels (the C12 ratio is higher, due to fossil carbon lacking C14), and you'd accept that there is a warming trend, and that the warmest decade on record has occurred at a solar minimum.
There's absolutely nothing to this that resembles the "supernatural".
"Hidden data"? You have a wealth of open data to examine. Which algorithms are hidden? Have you even been looking? No? You're just making stuff up, or copypasting from unverified claims — all the while pretending that your own faults are the faults of science.
I'll say this: you're not scientifically inclined at all. Otherwise, your arguments would probably have been with a slight scientifically orientation. There is none.
Oh, so because "Proponents of AGW are asking for societies to completely revise their infrastructures and policies" they must be wrong. Notice that your argument is fundamentally ideological. And still you demand respect for it?
It depends on what you consider "general use". Some cases demand more cores. GTA 4 is more or less unplayable on dual core systems, so an AMD is the cheapest option. As always, look at what you want to do, and then buy a computer, and don't be a fucking idiot.
Thom Holwerda over at OSnews disects the story thus>:
Also in the report, Huberty has a chart which shows the decline in netbook sales growth per month, year-over-year. The chart shows that year-over-year, the sales growth of netbooks is on a steady decline. In July 2009, netbook sales increased by a staggering 641% compared to the same month a year earlier. This is the kind of idiotic growth that's simply unsustainable.
From July 2009 onwards, the sales growth of netbooks has been declining - note, however, that sales are still growing, only at a more comfortable, less hype-like pace.
Basically, this is a non-story and yet more baseless hype for Apple's gadget.
Wrong. People will do what they think is profitable, and with the ridiculous amount of free advertising Apple receives, people will believe Apple's platform is the one to develop for. They need to be made aware of the fact that when you develop for Apple, you don't develop for yourself. You're basically signing away your right to do your work the way you see fit.
Apple needs more bad press. That's the point you miss.
Weird how all your "arguments" against the Android platform is against its customers, and that all your "arguments" for the iPhone are so vague that they aren't even wrong.
No wonder Apple and its fanboy cult is so quickly falling out of fashion.
Most of the 'prosumers' I've seen dismiss Gimp just repeat stuff they've read on Slashdot, knowing that it makes them look +5, insightful. They're probably as lazy when it comes to learning new tools as they are when it comes to independent thought.
Irony isn't easily conveyed in short comments, especially when they're indistinguishable from a whole bunch of other comments complaining that this shouldn't be considered Apple's fault. There's a reason why the story is tagged 'whataboutwindows' and 'misleadingtitle': Apple fanboys.
So that's a whitewash, but you yourself posted this blatant falsehood just two days ago. Seems that when it comes to smearjobs, you have no problem with lies, but when it comes to climate research, anything that doesn't support your view simply isn't good enough.
Of course the 'typical' Apple customer is hated, when he complains about unfair press for a problem doesn't affect the current version of any other major piece of software.
Of course the earth eventually will have another ice age. Those tend to come up now and then. Anthropogenic global cooling due to aerosols is something entirely different, and that's the subject here.
That's pretty much my point. There was one article in Time Magazine 40 years ago. And one in Newsweek. And then you have this:
An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales.
(Wikipedia's summary: "A survey of the scientific literature from 1965 to 1979 found 7 articles predicting cooling and 44 predicting warming, with the warming articles also being cited much more often in subsequent scientific literature.")
Just one quick point: you made up most of that yourself. The others, like the myth of "scientists 30 years ago" predicting another ice age, is pretty heavily debunked, and if you were interested in the truth at all, you'd know it.
The difference is that Mozilla can't legally include h.264 support
Why not?
Because it's patented.
So, why won't they allow third-party plug-ins for H.264 via the HTML5 video tag, but they will allow the Flash plug-in?
Mozilla allows for Flash because it allows for plug-ins. It's free software, not North Korea or Apple. The HTML5 video tag, however, is part of the HTML5 specification, so if you want to support HTML5 you need to support the video tag. If you do that through a plug-in, you don't support HTML5.
Dangerous to the free world? That's about the worst hyperbole I've ever heard. What, people's human rights and democracy will be taken away if a browser supports a non-FOSS CODEC? Again, why is H.264 such a dangerous threat, but Flash is not? How about GIF?
Nice strawman you got there. I've never said there's a problem with Apple and Microsoft supporting h.264. Since you depend on that assertion to "win" the argument, I can only conclude you're a very dishonest person.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I saw that when googling around (I also saw some that suggested it had to be Islamists, with fairly good reason), but the "40 year old white male" seems to be a description coming from the police, whereas Moryath needs to prove that it came "at the urging of the Obama administration" as he claimed. AFAIK, this is untrue.
Please prove this:
The point was, the description was off-base, and it was off-base on wishful thinking from certain media personalities and Obama administration officials who were hoping to tie the situation to "anti-Obama sentiment."
If you didn't make it up, you should be able to dig up a source or at least some credible evidence for the truth of your statement. That's got nothing to do with my psychology, nor with the colour of my nose.
And you know this because ... ??? No, you don't know at all, but make things up to suit your evident anti-Muslim agenda.
At least one photo of the bomber was released before he was caught. It was vague and grainy, and there's no chance that it was the best picture of him from a place so full of surveillance cameras as Times Square. So why did the police release only useless photos to the press? In the hope that he wasn't caught, so that the Obama administration could blame whitey, or perhaps rather because the police wanted to catch a possibly dangerous terrorist without public interference, and without suspicion heaped on every somewhat Semitic-looking American?
Actually, I was referring to yours, with your protesting against the description of the Times Square bomb guy being described as a "40 year old white male", as if a Taliban can't be white-skinned.
Since your comment only pretends to be about information but really is about brown people, I think it exemplifies perfectly how information becomes distraction.
The heat trapped by cats is energy the cats don't have to convert from food they eat, i.e. energy trapped in plants and then in animals eating the plants. The heat trapped by CO2 from fossil carbon wouldn't be absorbed in the atmosphere otherwise. QED, you're an idiot.
I already pointed out that there is strong evidence that fossil carbon is the source of the CO2 due to the fact that it lacks certain isotopes that belong to atmospheric carbon. I also said CO2 absorbs energy from infrared light. It's in the comment you're replying to. And then you go on to say: "The question, however, is what can be attributed as the source, what is the cause and what are the consequences of that CO2 rising?"
No wonder you didn't find the algorithms you were looking for: you can't read.
As I pointed out, there is no scepticism in osgeek's AGW denialism. It's simply ideology. Concluding from "this will be too expensive" to "this can't be happening" has nothing to do with scientific scepticism at all, and you make no argument at all yourself. I didn't conflate anything: osgeek isn't a sceptic, he's a denialist.
No, you don't. If you did, you'd already know that the CO2 levels are rising (measurable, and an indisputable empirical fact), that CO2 absorbs more energy from infrared light than most other atmospheric gasses (also a verified fact) and that the CO2 almost certainly comes from the burning of fossil fuels (the C12 ratio is higher, due to fossil carbon lacking C14), and you'd accept that there is a warming trend, and that the warmest decade on record has occurred at a solar minimum.
There's absolutely nothing to this that resembles the "supernatural".
"Hidden data"? You have a wealth of open data to examine. Which algorithms are hidden? Have you even been looking? No? You're just making stuff up, or copypasting from unverified claims — all the while pretending that your own faults are the faults of science.
I'll say this: you're not scientifically inclined at all. Otherwise, your arguments would probably have been with a slight scientifically orientation. There is none.
Oh, so because "Proponents of AGW are asking for societies to completely revise their infrastructures and policies" they must be wrong. Notice that your argument is fundamentally ideological. And still you demand respect for it?
It depends on what you consider "general use". Some cases demand more cores. GTA 4 is more or less unplayable on dual core systems, so an AMD is the cheapest option. As always, look at what you want to do, and then buy a computer, and don't be a fucking idiot.
Thom Holwerda over at OSnews disects the story thus>:
Also in the report, Huberty has a chart which shows the decline in netbook sales growth per month, year-over-year. The chart shows that year-over-year, the sales growth of netbooks is on a steady decline. In July 2009, netbook sales increased by a staggering 641% compared to the same month a year earlier. This is the kind of idiotic growth that's simply unsustainable.
From July 2009 onwards, the sales growth of netbooks has been declining - note, however, that sales are still growing, only at a more comfortable, less hype-like pace.
Basically, this is a non-story and yet more baseless hype for Apple's gadget.
Wrong. People will do what they think is profitable, and with the ridiculous amount of free advertising Apple receives, people will believe Apple's platform is the one to develop for. They need to be made aware of the fact that when you develop for Apple, you don't develop for yourself. You're basically signing away your right to do your work the way you see fit.
Apple needs more bad press. That's the point you miss.
I don't understand why you would want a Macbook Pro at all. It's a real computer, and you obviously have no need for it. Are your parents rich?
Bullshit. You said "modern climate scientists agree that the Earth should now be cooling", which is a blatant lie.
Weird how all your "arguments" against the Android platform is against its customers, and that all your "arguments" for the iPhone are so vague that they aren't even wrong.
No wonder Apple and its fanboy cult is so quickly falling out of fashion.
Most of the 'prosumers' I've seen dismiss Gimp just repeat stuff they've read on Slashdot, knowing that it makes them look +5, insightful. They're probably as lazy when it comes to learning new tools as they are when it comes to independent thought.
Irony isn't easily conveyed in short comments, especially when they're indistinguishable from a whole bunch of other comments complaining that this shouldn't be considered Apple's fault. There's a reason why the story is tagged 'whataboutwindows' and 'misleadingtitle': Apple fanboys.
So that's a whitewash, but you yourself posted this blatant falsehood just two days ago. Seems that when it comes to smearjobs, you have no problem with lies, but when it comes to climate research, anything that doesn't support your view simply isn't good enough.
Of course the 'typical' Apple customer is hated, when he complains about unfair press for a problem doesn't affect the current version of any other major piece of software.
Untrue.
The next large reduction in northern summer insolation, similar to those that started past Ice Ages, is due to begin in 30,000 years.
That's according to IPCC Working Group 1
Of course the earth eventually will have another ice age. Those tend to come up now and then. Anthropogenic global cooling due to aerosols is something entirely different, and that's the subject here.
That's pretty much my point. There was one article in Time Magazine 40 years ago. And one in Newsweek. And then you have this:
An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales.
(Wikipedia's summary: "A survey of the scientific literature from 1965 to 1979 found 7 articles predicting cooling and 44 predicting warming, with the warming articles also being cited much more often in subsequent scientific literature.")
Just one quick point: you made up most of that yourself. The others, like the myth of "scientists 30 years ago" predicting another ice age, is pretty heavily debunked, and if you were interested in the truth at all, you'd know it.
The difference is that Mozilla can't legally include h.264 support
Why not?
Because it's patented.
So, why won't they allow third-party plug-ins for H.264 via the HTML5 video tag, but they will allow the Flash plug-in?
Mozilla allows for Flash because it allows for plug-ins. It's free software, not North Korea or Apple. The HTML5 video tag, however, is part of the HTML5 specification, so if you want to support HTML5 you need to support the video tag. If you do that through a plug-in, you don't support HTML5.
Dangerous to the free world? That's about the worst hyperbole I've ever heard. What, people's human rights and democracy will be taken away if a browser supports a non-FOSS CODEC? Again, why is H.264 such a dangerous threat, but Flash is not? How about GIF?
Nice strawman you got there. I've never said there's a problem with Apple and Microsoft supporting h.264. Since you depend on that assertion to "win" the argument, I can only conclude you're a very dishonest person.