Just completely forget that there is, oh I don't know, the XBOX.
The whole XBOX business has been a cash sink for Microsoft. Don't forget that the Entertainment division collects the royalties from Android makers (that is hundreds of millions for free) and still it is in the red ( http://cdn.geekwire.com/wp-content/uploads/xbox.jpg ).
India is listed as a democratic country and it has big problems of malnutrition. Not to mention that in the last 50 years it dodged famine at least a couple of times only due to international aids (like in 1971/1972).
Sure, open source is great (I've contributed), but I think too much of either side is wrong. It's unethical to take what's not yours, be it because you don't want other people to rip you off, or for some other reason.
I can't get what's the link between the two sentences. What does Open Source/Free (as in GNU) software have to do with pirated software? Some closed source software benefits from pirated software, because it expands its audience among possible customers. Open source software never benefits from it.
So charging for software makes it inconvenient for people who want it. But think about the people who spend hours and hours coding. How do they afford coffee to stay up writing software so open-source freeloaders can consume whatever they feel like?
Open Source commercial software exists and thrives. This smells like the usual FUD: open source is bad for the economy, for your company, for your babies....
It's the admin part that's Firefox/Chrome only. So it may be something else than boring pixel perfect rendering. The portfolios(which need the "boring pixel perfect rendering to make the artists happy") can be browsed with any browser.
Counterexample: China has had polygamy for roughly 3000 years, and never turned to murder/rape/terrorism (or at least in significantly higher numbers than other countries).
But it didn't emerge like Europe did, though it had many strong points.
Almost every nation of the past had some form of polygamy, with the notable exception of Rome that was strictly monogamist. Germans were polygamist (Charlemagne had multiple wives and concubines), but the Church (ultimately being a Roman institution) tried to enforce monogamy troughout all the Middle Age, succeding at the end, so that all Europe became monogamist. Communism, being an European phylosophy, inherited the monogamist thing.
Seriously, Alex Jones, founder of Infowars and Prison Planet, is known for "Advocacy of national sovereignty; New World Order theories; anti-world government; and various conspiracy theories". And no, I'm not Portuguese.
Random deviations in a chaotic system (like weather)
Climate is a different story and can be quantifiable to the extent that effects such as El Nino were identified over a century ago.
What is your motivatation to mislead with irrelevant rubbish such as you posted above? Just because there is noise in a system does not mean the system does not exist.
You supported your parent post without even noticing it. El Niño is a quasi-periodic phenomenon that happens with a random interval of 3-7 years and a random duration of 9 months-2 years, that is what the parent post was about: "Random deviations in a chaotic system (like weather) are not bound to any duration. All you know is that random deviations have a finite duration, it can be arbitrarily long (including effectively infinite, meaning until the end of the earth)".
Quasi-periodicity and chaos are two faces of the same medal.
Just because there is noise in a system does not mean the system does not exist.
I can't even get what these words mean and I study system theory. The erratic periodicity of chaotic systems has nothing to do with noise.
I don't know if you are being sarcastic, but surprisingly the answer to the first question seems to be yes.
Yeah, really. Science news at 11. That smartass said (in 2008/2009) that in the last 20 years Sahara had recovered a lot of land, someone should tell him and the NG that the Sahel droughts are cyclical, with the last major one that happened in 1984/1985/1986 (~20 years before the study). Now there's a new one, with more incoming desertification.
And the problem with Aral lake is that people still are diverting water from there. The same problem happens with Owens lake in California.
The problem with lake Aral is that the local ecosystem is now totally messed up.
No, who did tell you that the world (the weather, in this case) works as a linear system? Is the Sahara desert turning back to a green land since we stopped sheep farming/overcultivating there? Is the Aral lake taking back its lost water now, when none is pumping out its water?
after GPL V3 the numbers were flat for the first quarter (as businesses looked it over) and then it has been a straight down curve ever since. look up the numbers yourself, it makes a pretty little bell curve.
Titus Andronicus writes "Scientific fraud has always been with us. But as stated or suggested by some scientists, journal editors, and a few studies, the amount of scientific 'cheating' has far outpaced the expansion of science itself. According to some, the financial incentives to 'cut corners' have never been greater, resulting in record numbers of retractions from prestigious journals. From the article: 'For example, the journal Nature reported that published retractions had increased tenfold over the past decade, while the number of published papers had increased by just 44 percent.'"
What? They put a nice graph to make it clear even to condensed matter physicists. There are 742 retracted papers in ten years (2000-2009), in the PubMed database and they increased from 3 in 2000 to 180 in 2009. 196 were fraudulent papers, 235 included some mistakes (they can't tell if those were intentional or not) and 311 were retracted for other reasons (including: those poor guys that based their work on prior forged papers).
In my example, both models had acceleration due to gravity as a constant, determined to be that way from previous experiment or theory, and so the question was what that constant actually was.
That's why that example is just wrong, our case is not one good, accepted model with strong theory or data to back it up that we are trying to refine with parameters identification, but a lot of proposed, very different models.
And of course, Model B goes to pot as soon as you change the parameters of the test, dropping the ball 100 meters instead of 1000 meters
No.
dropping a ball weighing something other than 0.5 kilos
Only this.
etc.
No again, just the weight.
the model not only has to predict where things are now, it obviously has to predict many data points in between 1981 and now.
They understimated the temperature increase by 30% for 25+ years, it's just now that the prediction is intersecting the data. RTFA. And no, 30% is not good given the huge inertia that such a system has got.
Alternately, and this seems to be the standard demanded by those who disagree that climate change is real, we could build a second planet Earth, place it in a clone of our solar system, and then try different levels of carbon emissions to see what happens. The obvious objection here is that such an experiment could not be carried out.
Plan B would be sampling the climatic data for a whole period, given that climate is almost periodic between ice ages: 19900 more years of data and we're done.
Plan C would be an independent test, that does not exist at the moment. I'm not really kidding, the data points here are the mean temperatures of every year, that is 30 points, 30 strongly correlated data points. Not much. It's a really bad situation for a model validation, the more people undestand this, the best for science, the worse for "science" journalists.
Model A: Acceleration due to Earth's gravity near the ground in a vacuum is ~10 m/s^2, so the ball should fall 100 meters in 4 seconds.
Model B: Acceleration due to Earth's gravity near the ground in a vacuum is ~5 m/s^2, so the ball should fall 100 meters in ~5.8 seconds.
Time for a ball to fall 100 is slightly over 4 seconds. Ergo, 10 m/s^2 is less wrong than 5 m/s^2.
In the words of Isaac Asimov, Model A is wrong, Model B is wrong, but if you think that Model A is as wrong as Model B, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.
This example is clueless: the OP wasn't questioning the identificated parameters of the model, but the model: in your example both models are the same!
To show you how wrong your example is:
Model A: acceleration due to Earth's gravity near the ground in a vacuum is 9 m/s^2, so according to A a 0.5 kilos ball should fall 1000 meters in ~14.9 seconds.
Model B: acceleration due to Earth's gravity near the ground in a vacuum is (4 + weight/0.086) m/s^2, so according to B a 0.5 kilos ball should fall 1000 meters in ~14.28 seconds.
Model B is completely wrong, while Model A is pretty accurate, however for a 0.5 kilos ball Model B gives better predictions.
And that's back when it was a different world, there were no (very few) hard drives, no (very few) "laptops", no smartphones, no (well, almost no) internet, and very few people owned a PC. Reaching a billion considering all those factors against them is amazing.
Do you mean "back when it was easy to start a monopoly"?
Do you have any examples or am I supposed to believe your FUD without questioning? Someone should tell to all those Android smartphone makers that the Linux kernel is GPL'ed.
Ermm.. Nope. UNIX is the most widely-adopted open source OS. One brand of it currently has 15% market share in the North American consumer market. And key to its success? It's not GPL!
Ahahah, the only open source parts that you could find in that OS are CUPS (GPL) and WebKit (LGPL)...
The only successful and widely adopted open source OS says otherwise.
It's fine as long as you don't need to use that software commercially.
Buy some old DOS game from GOG or DotEmu and you'll know that GPL is very widely used in commercial software. (Pro hint: that GPL license note, that you read when you install a DOS game, is there because those games are emulated by dosbox or scummvm).
Actually, the bible doesn't say you should be punishing the man who raped her, just that if she was a virgin he has to marry her and pay a higher than average bride price to her father for "sampling" the goods before he bought them.
Only if she's not a fiancée (and must be noted that at the time weddings were arranged when girls were prepubescent):
But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.
Deuteronomy 22:25-27
Also, no divorce allowed, so she's permanently stuck as the effective slave of her rapist. Such justice!
At the time a divorced woman had no means to survive by herself. That's why in India women were burned with their husbands at their death, or in modern day Afghanistan: "A divorced woman cannot return to her parents' family and, in an impoverished country with widespread unemployment, she cannot rebuild her life on her own, either. Some women seek escape by self-immolation, resulting in death or disfigurement. Last year, at least 30 women committed suicide in the western Farah Province alone, most of them by setting themselves on fire, according to Afghan media reports." Actually the no divorce allowed was a great social advancement for the time.
If she wasn't a virgin, it's not any of his problem at all, and there's no punishment for him, but she gets the stoning.
This is pure bullshit:
If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.
Deuteronomy 22:22
If a man sleeps with a female slave who is promised to another man but who has not been ransomed or given her freedom, there must be due punishment. Yet they are not to be put to death, because she had not been freed.
Leviticus 19:20
If she committed adultery, she is punished, otherwise she is not.
Slashdot Mirror
Just completely forget that there is, oh I don't know, the XBOX.
The whole XBOX business has been a cash sink for Microsoft. Don't forget that the Entertainment division collects the royalties from Android makers (that is hundreds of millions for free) and still it is in the red ( http://cdn.geekwire.com/wp-content/uploads/xbox.jpg ).
Irrelevant. Geographic separation is a direct cause of speciation.
That doesn't imply that they are not able to interbreed. Besides the fact that the definition of species is much more complex and foggy than what you said, we know that sometimes even different species can, in facts, interbreed succesfully: http://www.ratbehavior.org/Hybridization.htm#Fertile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_cat#Leopard_cats_as_pets .
India is listed as a democratic country and it has big problems of malnutrition. Not to mention that in the last 50 years it dodged famine at least a couple of times only due to international aids (like in 1971/1972).
Sure, open source is great (I've contributed), but I think too much of either side is wrong. It's unethical to take what's not yours, be it because you don't want other people to rip you off, or for some other reason.
I can't get what's the link between the two sentences. What does Open Source/Free (as in GNU) software have to do with pirated software? Some closed source software benefits from pirated software, because it expands its audience among possible customers. Open source software never benefits from it.
So charging for software makes it inconvenient for people who want it. But think about the people who spend hours and hours coding. How do they afford coffee to stay up writing software so open-source freeloaders can consume whatever they feel like?
Open Source commercial software exists and thrives. This smells like the usual FUD: open source is bad for the economy, for your company, for your babies....
"People are more apt to be influenced by their peers than by science"
Even scientists, mind you.
this article is also rather old
Come on: Julia Johnson May 25, 2012 – 2:53 PM ET | Last Updated: May 28, 2012 7:45 AM ET
It's the admin part that's Firefox/Chrome only. So it may be something else than boring pixel perfect rendering. The portfolios(which need the "boring pixel perfect rendering to make the artists happy") can be browsed with any browser.
Counterexample: China has had polygamy for roughly 3000 years, and never turned to murder/rape/terrorism (or at least in significantly higher numbers than other countries).
But it didn't emerge like Europe did, though it had many strong points.
Almost every nation of the past had some form of polygamy, with the notable exception of Rome that was strictly monogamist. Germans were polygamist (Charlemagne had multiple wives and concubines), but the Church (ultimately being a Roman institution) tried to enforce monogamy troughout all the Middle Age, succeding at the end, so that all Europe became monogamist. Communism, being an European phylosophy, inherited the monogamist thing.
2006: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2006/061206seedmoney.htm
Prison planet?
2010: http://www.infowars.com/google-and-cia-fund-political-precrime-technology/
Infowars???
Free award-winning SF stories/novellas - http://www.asimovs.com/
Ah! I got it!
Seriously, Alex Jones, founder of Infowars and Prison Planet, is known for "Advocacy of national sovereignty; New World Order theories; anti-world government; and various conspiracy theories". And no, I'm not Portuguese.
Climate is a different story and can be quantifiable to the extent that effects such as El Nino were identified over a century ago. What is your motivatation to mislead with irrelevant rubbish such as you posted above? Just because there is noise in a system does not mean the system does not exist.
You supported your parent post without even noticing it. El Niño is a quasi-periodic phenomenon that happens with a random interval of 3-7 years and a random duration of 9 months-2 years, that is what the parent post was about: "Random deviations in a chaotic system (like weather) are not bound to any duration. All you know is that random deviations have a finite duration, it can be arbitrarily long (including effectively infinite, meaning until the end of the earth)".
Quasi-periodicity and chaos are two faces of the same medal.
Just because there is noise in a system does not mean the system does not exist.
I can't even get what these words mean and I study system theory. The erratic periodicity of chaotic systems has nothing to do with noise.
I don't know if you are being sarcastic, but surprisingly the answer to the first question seems to be yes.
Yeah, really. Science news at 11. That smartass said (in 2008/2009) that in the last 20 years Sahara had recovered a lot of land, someone should tell him and the NG that the Sahel droughts are cyclical, with the last major one that happened in 1984/1985/1986 (~20 years before the study). Now there's a new one, with more incoming desertification.
And the problem with Aral lake is that people still are diverting water from there. The same problem happens with Owens lake in California.
The problem with lake Aral is that the local ecosystem is now totally messed up.
No, who did tell you that the world (the weather, in this case) works as a linear system? Is the Sahara desert turning back to a green land since we stopped sheep farming/overcultivating there? Is the Aral lake taking back its lost water now, when none is pumping out its water?
after GPL V3 the numbers were flat for the first quarter (as businesses looked it over) and then it has been a straight down curve ever since. look up the numbers yourself, it makes a pretty little bell curve.
OK, let's see: in december GPL+LGPL+AGPL were at 57% according to the Black Duck report on the decline of the GPL. Now, according to the daily updated data by Black Duck, GPL2/3+LGPL2.1/3 are at 56.33%, put in AGPL and older GPL lincences and you get to 57%.
OMG!!111!! That's the flattest bell curve I've ever seen!
No it's the same one. The article is tagged "December 16, 2011". It's just the usual MS shill that re-posts this shit ad nauseam.
The five lines abstract reads:
Titus Andronicus writes "Scientific fraud has always been with us. But as stated or suggested by some scientists, journal editors, and a few studies, the amount of scientific 'cheating' has far outpaced the expansion of science itself. According to some, the financial incentives to 'cut corners' have never been greater, resulting in record numbers of retractions from prestigious journals. From the article: 'For example, the journal Nature reported that published retractions had increased tenfold over the past decade, while the number of published papers had increased by just 44 percent.'"
So there's 196 papers retracted since 2001?
What? They put a nice graph to make it clear even to condensed matter physicists. There are 742 retracted papers in ten years (2000-2009), in the PubMed database and they increased from 3 in 2000 to 180 in 2009. 196 were fraudulent papers, 235 included some mistakes (they can't tell if those were intentional or not) and 311 were retracted for other reasons (including: those poor guys that based their work on prior forged papers).
In my example, both models had acceleration due to gravity as a constant, determined to be that way from previous experiment or theory, and so the question was what that constant actually was.
That's why that example is just wrong, our case is not one good, accepted model with strong theory or data to back it up that we are trying to refine with parameters identification, but a lot of proposed, very different models.
And of course, Model B goes to pot as soon as you change the parameters of the test, dropping the ball 100 meters instead of 1000 meters
No.
dropping a ball weighing something other than 0.5 kilos
Only this.
etc.
No again, just the weight.
the model not only has to predict where things are now, it obviously has to predict many data points in between 1981 and now.
They understimated the temperature increase by 30% for 25+ years, it's just now that the prediction is intersecting the data. RTFA.
And no, 30% is not good given the huge inertia that such a system has got.
Alternately, and this seems to be the standard demanded by those who disagree that climate change is real, we could build a second planet Earth, place it in a clone of our solar system, and then try different levels of carbon emissions to see what happens. The obvious objection here is that such an experiment could not be carried out.
Plan B would be sampling the climatic data for a whole period, given that climate is almost periodic between ice ages: 19900 more years of data and we're done. Plan C would be an independent test, that does not exist at the moment. I'm not really kidding, the data points here are the mean temperatures of every year, that is 30 points, 30 strongly correlated data points. Not much. It's a really bad situation for a model validation, the more people undestand this, the best for science, the worse for "science" journalists.
Model A: Acceleration due to Earth's gravity near the ground in a vacuum is ~10 m/s^2, so the ball should fall 100 meters in 4 seconds. Model B: Acceleration due to Earth's gravity near the ground in a vacuum is ~5 m/s^2, so the ball should fall 100 meters in ~5.8 seconds. Time for a ball to fall 100 is slightly over 4 seconds. Ergo, 10 m/s^2 is less wrong than 5 m/s^2.
In the words of Isaac Asimov, Model A is wrong, Model B is wrong, but if you think that Model A is as wrong as Model B, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.
This example is clueless: the OP wasn't questioning the identificated parameters of the model, but the model: in your example both models are the same!
To show you how wrong your example is:
Model A: acceleration due to Earth's gravity near the ground in a vacuum is 9 m/s^2, so according to A a 0.5 kilos ball should fall 1000 meters in ~14.9 seconds.
Model B: acceleration due to Earth's gravity near the ground in a vacuum is (4 + weight/0.086) m/s^2, so according to B a 0.5 kilos ball should fall 1000 meters in ~14.28 seconds.
Model B is completely wrong, while Model A is pretty accurate, however for a 0.5 kilos ball Model B gives better predictions.
And that's back when it was a different world, there were no (very few) hard drives, no (very few) "laptops", no smartphones, no (well, almost no) internet, and very few people owned a PC. Reaching a billion considering all those factors against them is amazing.
Do you mean "back when it was easy to start a monopoly"?
Do you have any examples or am I supposed to believe your FUD without questioning? Someone should tell to all those Android smartphone makers that the Linux kernel is GPL'ed.
Of course, Sony is a big company, and just because their games division seems to hate Linux
Well, Naughty Dog, the developers of the Uncharted series, use Linux: The Technology of UNCHARTED: Drake's Fortune (.pdf, 6.6 MB) .
Ermm.. Nope. UNIX is the most widely-adopted open source OS. One brand of it currently has 15% market share in the North American consumer market. And key to its success? It's not GPL!
Ahahah, the only open source parts that you could find in that OS are CUPS (GPL) and WebKit (LGPL)...
GPL is a horrible piece of sh*t.
The only successful and widely adopted open source OS says otherwise.
It's fine as long as you don't need to use that software commercially.
Buy some old DOS game from GOG or DotEmu and you'll know that GPL is very widely used in commercial software. (Pro hint: that GPL license note, that you read when you install a DOS game, is there because those games are emulated by dosbox or scummvm).
Actually, the bible doesn't say you should be punishing the man who raped her, just that if she was a virgin he has to marry her and pay a higher than average bride price to her father for "sampling" the goods before he bought them.
Only if she's not a fiancée (and must be noted that at the time weddings were arranged when girls were prepubescent):
But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.
Deuteronomy 22:25-27
Also, no divorce allowed, so she's permanently stuck as the effective slave of her rapist. Such justice!
At the time a divorced woman had no means to survive by herself. That's why in India women were burned with their husbands at their death, or in modern day Afghanistan: "A divorced woman cannot return to her parents' family and, in an impoverished country with widespread unemployment, she cannot rebuild her life on her own, either. Some women seek escape by self-immolation, resulting in death or disfigurement. Last year, at least 30 women committed suicide in the western Farah Province alone, most of them by setting themselves on fire, according to Afghan media reports." Actually the no divorce allowed was a great social advancement for the time.
If she wasn't a virgin, it's not any of his problem at all, and there's no punishment for him, but she gets the stoning.
This is pure bullshit:
If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.
Deuteronomy 22:22
If a man sleeps with a female slave who is promised to another man but who has not been ransomed or given her freedom, there must be due punishment. Yet they are not to be put to death, because she had not been freed.
Leviticus 19:20
If she committed adultery, she is punished, otherwise she is not.
Try again - Simcity2000 (Win9x) works fine under vista in 1920x1200
Ah, that's why GOG sells the dos version of SimCity2000SE bundled with DosBox. /sarcasm
but crashes under WINE whenever you try to save anything - which is more than a "small bug."
The same bug hits Vista/7, however in Wine you can set Windows version to NT3.5 and bypass it.