"Relativity is provably accurate because we can actually make a prediction and then test it [space.com]. It's provably accurate until it is proven inaccurate. Unlike climate science, which is nearly impossible to prove or disprove in the real world."
You are WRONG. As a descriptive science (like biology and geology) it is all about collecting and organizing a large amount of data. While you can argue about the PREDICTIVE part, the descriptive part IS science.
"Should people have gotten sued if they published that the earth was round/flat when that was debated(if it was, I'm not sure on the history of that)? "
Then there would be PROOF on the side of the sued person to support his statements.
"2/3 majority in parliamentary procedure is taken as meaning there are at least twice as many votes for than against. That avoids the whole fractional vote issue, which is a nonsensical concept.
In this case there were 70 against, which means there would have to be at least 140 for. Thus the motion fails."
Slashdot Mirror
All your language are belongs to us
People were trying to fly for _centuries_, or even longer. So, what's the point?
Keep trying.
And your remark (just as mine here) will be modded Offtopic (or Troll) as well :)
Morning? It's a fine afternoon!
Oh.. wrong continent..
Nom nom nom...
Mind your own business! ...nom nom nom
(I am a very visual type)
"Internal" does not mean it was developed "in-house".
You know, that's why I hate when they say: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"
And that is why I love the term "technical debt".
If all those legacy systems would be OSS, companies could upgrade them to support browsers.
"actual proprietary IE features were never used as widely as Slashdot assumes they were."
Yeah? Like ActiveX?
I thought that you called the Windows users idiots ;)
Why modded Flamebait??
http://news.bitdefender.com/NW1493-world--iPad-Users-Targeted-by-Backdoor-Dissembled-as-iTunes-Update.html
Naah, lawyers don't grok mathematical logic. They will apply the paradoxical law without problem.
"It seems to me that it would be reasonably trivial to develop a distributed social network"
I think it is called World Wide Web.
We do not have to answer this, because you can easily find it out FOR YOURSELF.
If you really care.
"Relativity is provably accurate because we can actually make a prediction and then test it [space.com]. It's provably accurate until it is proven inaccurate. Unlike climate science, which is nearly impossible to prove or disprove in the real world."
You are WRONG. As a descriptive science (like biology and geology) it is all about collecting and organizing a large amount of data. While you can argue about the PREDICTIVE part, the descriptive part IS science.
Data IS available, even if you DO NOT CARE to find it.
HERE IS YOUR FUCKING RAW DATA (because you are unvilling to search it for yourself -- and call yourself a skeptic...):
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v2 [noaa.gov]
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/ [noaa.gov]
http://dss.ucar.edu/datasets/ds570.0/ [ucar.edu]
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/READER [antarctica.ac.uk]
http://eca.knmi.nl/ [eca.knmi.nl]
http://www.zamg.ac.at/histalp/content/view/35/1 [zamg.ac.at]
http://daac.gsfc.nasa.gov/atdd [nasa.gov]
http://mirador.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/mirador/presentNavigation.pl?tree=project&project=SORCE [nasa.gov]
http://amsu.cira.colostate.edu/ [colostate.edu]
http://www.pol.ac.uk/ntslf/data.html [pol.ac.uk]
http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/dataexp.html [unizh.ch]
http://www.marine.csiro.au/~ttchen/argo/gmap.htm [csiro.au]
http://icoads.noaa.gov/ [noaa.gov]
YOU IDIOT!
Here you are, PLENTY of RAW datasets:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v2
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/
http://dss.ucar.edu/datasets/ds570.0/
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/READER
http://eca.knmi.nl/
http://www.zamg.ac.at/histalp/content/view/35/1
http://daac.gsfc.nasa.gov/atdd
http://mirador.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/mirador/presentNavigation.pl?tree=project&project=SORCE
http://amsu.cira.colostate.edu/
http://www.pol.ac.uk/ntslf/data.html
http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/dataexp.html
http://www.marine.csiro.au/~ttchen/argo/gmap.htm
http://icoads.noaa.gov/
Let me repeat:
YOU IDIOT
"Should people have gotten sued if they published that the earth was round/flat when that was debated(if it was, I'm not sure on the history of that)? "
Then there would be PROOF on the side of the sued person to support his statements.
Like they were not doing this for years... Tell you what?
IT
DOES
NOT
WORK
The fashion nowadays is to hack into universities mailboxes, falsely quote interviews, etc.
Naah, he will never read them, because that might shake his faith!
I am DISGUSTED by these people -- they call themselves nerd but do not care to look up the TREMENDOUS amount of available data and stuff.
"What difference does it make which slant is has as long as they are reporting FACTS?"
This will be decided by the judge (or jury, whatever they have) and not you.
Nuff said.
Of course that is not the link I wanted...
The correct one:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1628396&cid=31950942
Sorry to crosslink, but this guy had it right: http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1628396&cid=31950218
"2/3 majority in parliamentary procedure is taken as meaning there are at least twice as many votes for than against. That avoids the whole fractional vote issue, which is a nonsensical concept.
In this case there were 70 against, which means there would have to be at least 140 for. Thus the motion fails."
Mod HIM, not me. Thanks.