"burn fossil fuels at current rates is not environmentally sound policy."
I would agree. And the only practical answer in nuclear.
I would posit that anyone who opposes nuclear, despite it's impressive safety record and tremendous potential for further efficiencies (breeders, thorium, etc.) Is not truly interested in solving any potential global warming, rather they are in well within the camp that suggests we should all live in grass huts, commune with the animals and eat nuts and twigs.
It is a rather delicious irony that the majority of the rabid anti-nukers from the 60s and 70s are now the rabid anti-fossil fuels and global warming hand wringers.
Of course I know the standard responses...I'm not a climate scientist so what do I know anything, Nature is "Dr. Jones Peer Reviewed", everyone else is paid by Exxon, blah blah blah.
Fact is that this issue is now beyond science and is being fought in the public forum. Anyone who would have the world cripple itself economically needs to be 150% above board with all their data and methods. No hiding behind anything. Anyone with a reasonable background in science should be able to take their models apart, thoroughly understand what they are doing and why and be able to replicate their work, from the friggen hunk of wood to the final graph. Hire more people to fulfill FOI request if that's what it takes.
If necessary, they should set aside a few months a year to do nothing but assist others in understanding their methods (never mind that if any other scientist had to help others replicate their work, it would be seen as a sign of fraud). Too important and busy to do that? Bullshit. Given what want everyone to do, they have an OBLIGATION to do that.
And lastly...I'm sorry but if the friggin tree ring data is not valid for assessing temperature after 1960, then it is not valid assessing temperature before 1960.
Music and movies are fundamentally different. Aside from the obvious visual aspect, they are much longer, require that you pay attention, and get worse with each viewing.
How many people would put on Top Gun each morning when they get into work? How many people would actually pay attention to it after the fifth time that week? How many people wouldn't notice how cheesy the dialog and special affects are after subsequent viewings?
I suspect that if you were put into a PET scanner, entirely different portions of the brain would light up when watching a movie vs. listen to music.
So while music can be listened to over and over again with the same level of enjoyment, movies can't be watched over and over again...unless you are stoned.
I don't think movies are going to go the way of music.
Actually, I think this could be a problem for VOIP. With POTS, you have the line to your house and the phone. Very few places for the consumer to screw it up.
For the two companies I have been in that had VOIP (including the current one) the VOIP relies on locally installed servers and were constantly needing tweaks by the provider. Often, they needed us go to the server room and reboot their server.
So VOIP is great, with great features, etc. But not everyone has the resources of a large call center to dial it in and maintain it.
Ha! I can see someone talking to their grandma about VLAN and QOS.
Bringing the OS to a new device means that new device can now do something the old could never do before. That's revolutionary. Integrating a computer into the car so that a car can park itself, avoid collisions, call for help when you get into an accident, that's stuff a car could not do 20-30 years ago.
What can I do in any OS now that I couldn't do in some fashion in 1995? Sure, everything they could do in 1995, they can stupendously better now, but it's still the same thing.
And unless you are a totally fanboy of Windows you would recognize a simple question and respond with a discussion instead of calling names.
The only thing impressively stupid is your confusing a question with a comment.
Here's a comment if you want a comment.
Fifteen years, probably well over a billion dollars spent and we still have the same paradigm as Windows 95 (OS X is included in this also).
Look at cell phones...20 years ago all they could do is dial a number...contrast that with the iPhone or Android functionality...completely different paradigm.
Look at television, same thing. From 5-10 local channels to hundreds, video on demand, DVR, web surfing, HD, etc.
What advancements in computer OSs approach the breadth and width of change in these two products?
Can someone tell me exactly what is new and different from say Win95 to Windows 7?
Sure, they fixed bugs and maybe made it faster...somewhat, but overall it seem as if we are in a Men's Suit shop with racks and racks of suits, the only difference being the shades of gray and single breasted or double breasted.
Where is the innovation? Where is the Wow stuff?
How much has hardware progressed? Has the software actually progressed with it other to become a great fat pig of resources, doing the same stuff it did in 95, only more of it?
Slashdot Mirror
Ahhh...so then do you fully support nuclear energy? If not, then I call bullshit on everything you said.
So if you search for "insert fake data here" and you then find it, that's some kind of bias?
OOOkkkkaayyyy.
I stopped reading you mentioned "ideologically colorblind" and wikipedia in the same sentence.
I guess you missed the part where Krugman is a radical leftist who writes for the New York Times and supports all manner of silly leftist ideals.
Krugman? Seriously? Krugman?
Yeah, sure, he has a Nobel prize. So does Gore and Obama...what's your point?
"burn fossil fuels at current rates is not environmentally sound policy."
I would agree. And the only practical answer in nuclear.
I would posit that anyone who opposes nuclear, despite it's impressive safety record and tremendous potential for further efficiencies (breeders, thorium, etc.) Is not truly interested in solving any potential global warming, rather they are in well within the camp that suggests we should all live in grass huts, commune with the animals and eat nuts and twigs.
It is a rather delicious irony that the majority of the rabid anti-nukers from the 60s and 70s are now the rabid anti-fossil fuels and global warming hand wringers.
Wasn't it so inconsiderate of those trees to change the way the respond to temperature?
I wonder why they don't include other tree ring data or the Finnish data? Instead, they used bogus data.
And "they" continue to hide other data.
Of course I know the standard responses...I'm not a climate scientist so what do I know anything, Nature is "Dr. Jones Peer Reviewed", everyone else is paid by Exxon, blah blah blah.
Fact is that this issue is now beyond science and is being fought in the public forum. Anyone who would have the world cripple itself economically needs to be 150% above board with all their data and methods. No hiding behind anything. Anyone with a reasonable background in science should be able to take their models apart, thoroughly understand what they are doing and why and be able to replicate their work, from the friggen hunk of wood to the final graph. Hire more people to fulfill FOI request if that's what it takes.
If necessary, they should set aside a few months a year to do nothing but assist others in understanding their methods (never mind that if any other scientist had to help others replicate their work, it would be seen as a sign of fraud). Too important and busy to do that? Bullshit. Given what want everyone to do, they have an OBLIGATION to do that.
And lastly...I'm sorry but if the friggin tree ring data is not valid for assessing temperature after 1960, then it is not valid assessing temperature before 1960.
Music and movies are fundamentally different. Aside from the obvious visual aspect, they are much longer, require that you pay attention, and get worse with each viewing.
How many people would put on Top Gun each morning when they get into work? How many people would actually pay attention to it after the fifth time that week? How many people wouldn't notice how cheesy the dialog and special affects are after subsequent viewings?
I suspect that if you were put into a PET scanner, entirely different portions of the brain would light up when watching a movie vs. listen to music.
So while music can be listened to over and over again with the same level of enjoyment, movies can't be watched over and over again...unless you are stoned.
I don't think movies are going to go the way of music.
A new category on www.pornhub.com
Actually, I think this could be a problem for VOIP. With POTS, you have the line to your house and the phone. Very few places for the consumer to screw it up.
For the two companies I have been in that had VOIP (including the current one) the VOIP relies on locally installed servers and were constantly needing tweaks by the provider. Often, they needed us go to the server room and reboot their server.
So VOIP is great, with great features, etc. But not everyone has the resources of a large call center to dial it in and maintain it.
Ha! I can see someone talking to their grandma about VLAN and QOS.
My compa y has VOIP an it see t have pro le wit cu out.
Apparently, your simple reliable science can't account for the last decade of no warming.
And how convenient for you that you can't prove a negative because it leaves you free to assert pretty much anything.
Now who is the Denier?
In the meantime, he is trying to figure out of the island is sinking.
Little does he know that Gilligan has been moving his measuring stick further and further into the lagoon in search of bigger lobsters.
Self-referential
You forgot the New Zealanders...oh...wait
"scientists publishing in peer reviewed journals."
Peer reviewed Journals that pretty much didn't accept anything other than the party line.
The entire AGW movement has become self-referential.
Careful, you need to be more specific. There are now two categories of "Deniers".
The most recent being those who deny there is some kind of funny business going on in the AGW movement.
Isn't RealClimate.org pretty much the creation of Mr. Jones, et al?
this is pretty much like Wikipedia citing Wikipedia.
Bringing the OS to a new device means that new device can now do something the old could never do before. That's revolutionary. Integrating a computer into the car so that a car can park itself, avoid collisions, call for help when you get into an accident, that's stuff a car could not do 20-30 years ago.
What can I do in any OS now that I couldn't do in some fashion in 1995? Sure, everything they could do in 1995, they can stupendously better now, but it's still the same thing.
And unless you are a totally fanboy of Windows you would recognize a simple question and respond with a discussion instead of calling names.
The only thing impressively stupid is your confusing a question with a comment.
Here's a comment if you want a comment.
Fifteen years, probably well over a billion dollars spent and we still have the same paradigm as Windows 95 (OS X is included in this also).
Look at cell phones...20 years ago all they could do is dial a number...contrast that with the iPhone or Android functionality...completely different paradigm.
Look at television, same thing. From 5-10 local channels to hundreds, video on demand, DVR, web surfing, HD, etc.
What advancements in computer OSs approach the breadth and width of change in these two products?
Can someone tell me exactly what is new and different from say Win95 to Windows 7?
Sure, they fixed bugs and maybe made it faster...somewhat, but overall it seem as if we are in a Men's Suit shop with racks and racks of suits, the only difference being the shades of gray and single breasted or double breasted.
Where is the innovation? Where is the Wow stuff?
How much has hardware progressed? Has the software actually progressed with it other to become a great fat pig of resources, doing the same stuff it did in 95, only more of it?
At least Benjamin Franklin has all his original data.
And both of you have a speech impediment.
How's that Hopey Changey thing working out for ya?
It's 8:41PM...41 minutes past your bedtime. Now GET!