Generally the goverment doesn't decide who is and who isn't a troll. The Attorney General can only sue based on current law, and the judge getting the case can only decide based on current law. "Patent Troll" is not a legal term, and MPHJ doesn't get sued for being a patent troll, but for fraudulently representing what they are selling (licenses to patents they claim to have exclusive rights on, which they don't have, for instance).
We know that carbon dioxide causes a green house effect. This is known since more than 100 years, when Svante Arrhenius observed it in 1895, based on works by Joseph Fourier (of Fourier transformation fame) and John Tyndall. And this was long before any climate scientists urgently needed governmental founding (or whatever the conspiracy theory du jour is).
Measurements of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere point to a rapid increase (from 315 ppm in 1960 to 400 today), and we have a pretty good idea how much carbon dioxide humans add to the atmosphere each year (about at least five time that of all volcano eruptions together).
Hm. The numbers actually say something else. In June 1995, there was Internet already in 14% of all households in the US, and Microsoft didn't start to bundle an IP-stack with Windows before Win95 SP1 (which came out in November 1995). So I would rather take this statistics to prove my point: Internet as a wide spread phenomenon was existant before Microsoft enabled it, and the bundling of an IP-stack was a result of consumers asking for Internet features before buying a new computer. So it was consumers who drove Microsoft to Internet, and not Microsoft driving the Internet to consumers.
Luckily agendas don't change observed realities. If you don't believe the climatologists, go and measure the climate yourself. You could even do it the open source way - find enough people around the world to constantly measure important climate data.
You could also dig through decades of weather reports to sample some historical data. Again, ask volunteers to help.
And then you will get a big bunch of data you can play statistics on. And then it will result in a global warming trend quite parallel to the measured amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
The first null hypothesis is: Humans don't put much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, so the levels should be about constant, as all other carbon dioxide sources we know are either constant too (volcanos), or in a stoichometric balance (carbon dioxide cycle between plants and animals).
Observed reality: carbon dioxide levels increased from 315 ppm in 1960 to 400 ppm today.
The second null hypothesis is: During history, surface temperatures change within well known limits, thus today's average surface temperatures are not unpreceeded. Wellknown long term phenomenons like glaciers should thus be on levels we know from the history books.
Observed reality: Glaciers in Europe are at their lowest level ever, pointing to stronger melting than ever in history.
The third null hypothesis is: Global Earth temperatures are not dominated by the green house effect, but by other effects like the amount of energy it gets from the sun.
Observed reality: The surface temperature of the Earth, given its albedo and the amount of energy it gets from the sun, should be around 270 K, in fact it is more close to 290 K.
It has nothing to do with Microsoft and the commodization of the PC. There were home computers in many households before, and most of them were able to work with the Internet before Microsoft enabled Internet out of the box on their OS offerings.
For a long time, Microsoft tried to use their own LANmanager (based on DEC's Pathworks) or its later incarnation as NetBEUI/NetBIOS as the local networking stack, and IP had to be added via Trumpet Winsock or similar third party applications. The Internet Providers thus were giving out installation media to install IP functionality together with the Internet access.
Internet was in many households long before Microsoft implemented it on the "commodized PC platform".
Actually, this was no fix. Most of the workes in Egypt weren't slaves at all, but free pawns, whose fields were not usable at the time because of the Nile flooding.
Construction times at the pyramides were depending on the Nile, and whenever the fields were flooded, pawns were ordered to work on the pyramids or whatever construction project was due.
While the Global Hawk surely is large, it's a far cry from a 747. It has a wingspan of about 130 ft and a length of 48 ft. Compare that to the 211 ft wingspan and 230 ft length of a 747-400!
So the joke about the function and the operator which meet, and where the operator tells the function: off my domain of definition, or I will differentiate you! to which the function wittily replies: do it! do it! I am e^x! But then the operator thunders: And I am d/dy!
No, they didn't. Even after correcting for an early death in childhood, people on average didn't live as long as today. Main reason are bacterial infections we routinely cure today with antibiotics, and which can be deadly if left untreated.
To quote the blurb you are replying to: "Of course, solar-electric airplanes have flown for two weeks continuously, but that sure seems like refueling!"
I don't remember any of the kernel releases to be touted as "ideal gaming platform" or "specially developed for the player enthusiast". So no failure here.
Actually yes. The other company has to expressively state what they will use the information for. And they are not allowed to use if for anything the customer has not agreed on. And that's Apple's problem here. They actually can't tell what their contract partners will use the information for, so they can't tell their customers, as they are required by law to do. So either they don't collect the data, or they make a better job at explaining to the customer what the data is used for before collecting it.
That's exactly what was wrong here. Apple didn't put enough information in the privacy policy to allow the customers to make an informed guess if they like it or not.
They obviously do. The only project ever to disprove the climate statistics ended up in confirming their projections. So far no one else has proven the statistics wrong. And no, "I don't like the results, so they must be wrong" is no proof for anything.
The problem with your argument is that humans don't live alone, or as separate families without contact to the neighbours. It has been proven that larger groups of humans are more stable, and their children have a better survival rate if there is someone here to take either care of the children at times when the biological parents can't, or work on tasks people with children can't perform very well at. It is so important that there are childless people in a group of humans, that about every type of society developed their own concept of childless persons, be it monks, eunuchs, vestal virgins, deacons, aunts or whatever they are called.
Your argument would be akin to claiming that worker ants are an illness of an anthill, because worker ants don't reproduce.
No. Then they would need measurements. Lots of them. Millions of them. So much measurement, that some people just sit there, overwhelmed by the sheer number of data points and claim, that no one could ever make any sense of it and thus we should just mind our own business and go away.
Slashdot Mirror
Generally the goverment doesn't decide who is and who isn't a troll. The Attorney General can only sue based on current law, and the judge getting the case can only decide based on current law. "Patent Troll" is not a legal term, and MPHJ doesn't get sued for being a patent troll, but for fraudulently representing what they are selling (licenses to patents they claim to have exclusive rights on, which they don't have, for instance).
We know that carbon dioxide causes a green house effect. This is known since more than 100 years, when Svante Arrhenius observed it in 1895, based on works by Joseph Fourier (of Fourier transformation fame) and John Tyndall. And this was long before any climate scientists urgently needed governmental founding (or whatever the conspiracy theory du jour is). Measurements of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere point to a rapid increase (from 315 ppm in 1960 to 400 today), and we have a pretty good idea how much carbon dioxide humans add to the atmosphere each year (about at least five time that of all volcano eruptions together).
Hm. The numbers actually say something else. In June 1995, there was Internet already in 14% of all households in the US, and Microsoft didn't start to bundle an IP-stack with Windows before Win95 SP1 (which came out in November 1995). So I would rather take this statistics to prove my point: Internet as a wide spread phenomenon was existant before Microsoft enabled it, and the bundling of an IP-stack was a result of consumers asking for Internet features before buying a new computer. So it was consumers who drove Microsoft to Internet, and not Microsoft driving the Internet to consumers.
You could also dig through decades of weather reports to sample some historical data. Again, ask volunteers to help.
And then you will get a big bunch of data you can play statistics on. And then it will result in a global warming trend quite parallel to the measured amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
And then?
Observed reality: carbon dioxide levels increased from 315 ppm in 1960 to 400 ppm today.
The second null hypothesis is: During history, surface temperatures change within well known limits, thus today's average surface temperatures are not unpreceeded. Wellknown long term phenomenons like glaciers should thus be on levels we know from the history books.
Observed reality: Glaciers in Europe are at their lowest level ever, pointing to stronger melting than ever in history.
The third null hypothesis is: Global Earth temperatures are not dominated by the green house effect, but by other effects like the amount of energy it gets from the sun.
Observed reality: The surface temperature of the Earth, given its albedo and the amount of energy it gets from the sun, should be around 270 K, in fact it is more close to 290 K.
For a long time, Microsoft tried to use their own LANmanager (based on DEC's Pathworks) or its later incarnation as NetBEUI/NetBIOS as the local networking stack, and IP had to be added via Trumpet Winsock or similar third party applications. The Internet Providers thus were giving out installation media to install IP functionality together with the Internet access.
Internet was in many households long before Microsoft implemented it on the "commodized PC platform".
Actually, this was no fix. Most of the workes in Egypt weren't slaves at all, but free pawns, whose fields were not usable at the time because of the Nile flooding. Construction times at the pyramides were depending on the Nile, and whenever the fields were flooded, pawns were ordered to work on the pyramids or whatever construction project was due.
Of course it is plausible that a firm whose business is copyright has no clue about copyright.
No, extra energy was added via solar panels to refuel the batteries.
While the Global Hawk surely is large, it's a far cry from a 747. It has a wingspan of about 130 ft and a length of 48 ft. Compare that to the 211 ft wingspan and 230 ft length of a 747-400!
It wasn't his fault. It was that "pepper" was a synonym for "spice" in general.
At whose expense comes this joke?
No, they didn't. Even after correcting for an early death in childhood, people on average didn't live as long as today. Main reason are bacterial infections we routinely cure today with antibiotics, and which can be deadly if left untreated.
To quote the blurb you are replying to: "Of course, solar-electric airplanes have flown for two weeks continuously, but that sure seems like refueling!"
That's because until recently, Kernels with odd minor release numbers are developer versions, not for productive use.
That was exactly the point I was trying to make :)
I don't remember any of the kernel releases to be touted as "ideal gaming platform" or "specially developed for the player enthusiast". So no failure here.
Actually yes. The other company has to expressively state what they will use the information for. And they are not allowed to use if for anything the customer has not agreed on. And that's Apple's problem here. They actually can't tell what their contract partners will use the information for, so they can't tell their customers, as they are required by law to do. So either they don't collect the data, or they make a better job at explaining to the customer what the data is used for before collecting it.
That's exactly what was wrong here. Apple didn't put enough information in the privacy policy to allow the customers to make an informed guess if they like it or not.
They obviously do. The only project ever to disprove the climate statistics ended up in confirming their projections. So far no one else has proven the statistics wrong. And no, "I don't like the results, so they must be wrong" is no proof for anything.
So which of them are the failures of Linux?
My first word was "auto" (car), those of my children were "gimme butter" and "flugzeug da oben" (airplan above).
Then it's all downhill from there.
Your argument would be akin to claiming that worker ants are an illness of an anthill, because worker ants don't reproduce.
They could all be Climate Scientists!
No. Then they would need measurements. Lots of them. Millions of them. So much measurement, that some people just sit there, overwhelmed by the sheer number of data points and claim, that no one could ever make any sense of it and thus we should just mind our own business and go away.