Everything that Windows 8 brings to the table works against bloatware -- for example, Windows 8 Store apps can't monopolize CPU and memory unless the user deliberately launches and is actively running them, generally speaking. Store apps (aka Metro) are very well behaved due to intentional OS constraints. Desktop apps can still be poorly behaved and set themselves to run on startup, phone home, etc., but that's just because Windows 8 is compatible with poorly behaved apps written for previous Windows versions. Microsoft's Windows 8 software logo requirements for desktop apps mandate that apps _not_ add themselves to the "run on startup" registry keys. But that part is not enforced, which was the right call on Microsoft's part. If they made Windows desktop software a walled garden, everybody here would be screaming bloody murder.
tl;dr version: basically Windows 8 brings a substantial improvement against bloatware in that the RT/Metro/Store side protects your CPU/memory resources from being consumed by it; but the legacy desktop side is still an unlocked experience, and vendors can install junk on there if they want to.
I have young daughters as well, and I have a similar reaction to Barbie dolls and their ilk, primarily because I don't want my daughters (or my son for that matter) to buy into the whole sexualization/objectification of women mindset. However, I don't reflexively avoid gender-targeted toys. Why should boys and girls have to be indistinguishable in their play preferences? What's wrong with the boys deciding that they like Cars and the girls Disney Princesses, as long as their parents are OK with it?
Don't worry, there are plenty of gender neutral family activities, too. I teach them all to shoot firearms as soon as they're old enough.;)
It's human nature to want your witch hunt to successfully root out a witch, and it's human nature after the huge endeavor of analyzing DNA from all those people, when they've found a match, to say "let's prosecute". Hence the arrest instead of just an interview. I don't know the truth of the matter, I'm just suspicious.
What in the world are you talking about? Do you know what "fiscally conservative" means? Maybe if you get more specific instead of using vague and weird figures of speech this will be clearer.
Get educated, dude. The Republican party is the nanny state X10. Party of liberty my ass.
I don't know about the X10 part, it sort of depends what issues are most important to you. Both Republicans and Democrats push for a nanny state in different ways. Since you're obviously already aware of the Republican side, I'll just list a few Democrat ways:
- Restriction of free speech in terms of political donations.
- Restriction of free speech by categorizing it as "hate speech".
- Restriction on commerce -- for example, even if you are an experienced hairdresser, you can't just set up a hair salon in New Orleans (or similarly, drive a taxi in NYC, etc.) due to burdensome and asphyxiating regulations.
- Restriction on commerce -- unions are empowered by law to effectively tax all their non-union coworkers in many states, effectively taking other people's money (and donating a bunch of it to the Democratic party, isn't that convenient?).
- Restriction on personal accumulation of wealth -- forced redistribution appears to be openly embraced by the Democrats these days.
In general, the Republicans are supposed to be the party of smaller government. They've fallen down on the job in many ways, but in that respect they're still a lot better than the Democrats. Obama wants the government to grow without limit and encompass many more areas of our life in this country. To the extent that his vision is realized, the nanny state will grow.
If you get in debt to someone, that person will gain the ability to control your life. If more and more people are beholden to the government, the government will control their lives. Government paying for your healthcare? Oh, then you won't complain if the government tells you not to smoke or eat trans fats anymore, right?
If the size of the trend is greater than the error bars of then trend then you have statistical significance.
I seem to recall that the Guardian article on the controversy quoted a boffin as saying that the trend was a tenth of a degree per decade, plus or minus 1.5 degrees. In other words, over a period of 15 years it was still hidden entirely inside the margin of error.
please discard all GPS units you own
Nah, the GPS thing is a red herring, since we can easily validate that we arrive at our desired destination. Confirmation of predictions of chaotic dynamic systems is rather a different challenge, and error estimation of old temperature proxy data is more voodoo than science at this point.
If the founding fathers had their way, I would still be considered a property. Kindly shove your ideology somewhere else.
Get educated, dude. Many of the founding fathers had already successfully abolished slavery in their states, and were working to do so in all the colonies as soon as they peacefully could.
But you're missing the OP's point, which was that the founding fathers understood the importance of freedom from tyrannical government. Obama is moving us in the direction of the nanny state -- a government that aggressively redistributes money is unlikely to respect private property or private freedoms. Our federal government doesn't know how to shrink itself or avoid interfering in people's lives. People of Obama's mindset want to consolidate the growth and momentum of the country in the public sector, not the private sector. This trend only naturally moves in one direction unless forced by the people to do otherwise. The Revolutionary War was an occasion of forcing an oppressive government to back off, and it was a Good Thing (tm).
The measurable land and air temperature showed no mathematically significant increase over that period; the small increase occurred entirely inside the range of data noise. But it's admittedly overstating the case to say that the temperature didn't go up at all.
It's also true that some of the graphs in your link are overstating their case by presenting very sketchy conjectural model data or drastically less complete measurement summaries in the same chart as modern, rigorous measurements. Extrapolation of empirically derived models of dynamic systems is typically a fool's errand. And when you realize the realistic error involved in these charts it kind of makes you go "hmmm".
We have to be careful treating technology like this as an infallible oracle.
- Technicians could have made a mistake.
- Our understanding of the science of genetic matching could be flawed in ways that we haven't come to realize yet.
- The guy could have had consensual relations with the girl (creepy though that is) and somebody different murdered her.
It's strange that he volunteered a DNA sample. Hopefully that's just because most criminals are dumb, and not because he's being wrongly accused.
Nobody is being disenfranchised except those people who aren't able to prove their identity. There may be a segment of the population that is either too dumb or incompetent to prove their identity, but it grates on me to hear liberals describe that demographic as minorities and liberals. Many minorities and liberals are very intelligent, thank you very much, and I think anti-anti-voter-fraud people shouldn't slander them like that.
I looked through the cached page, and it was a little disturbing to see a false positive. Specifically, Hallie C. She may or may not be a racist, but clearly the evidence that I saw on the blog was not sufficient to call her one. Apparently she complained that proposed race-based quotas would remove a requirement to work hard in order to get a job (which seems plausible, since it de-emphasizes merit-based competition in order to consider instead the color of your skin). And so our blogger claimed she was saying black people are lazy. Whatever, dude.
Also, the chairman of the Maine Republican party. If black people are not known to live in a town, yet they are bused in to vote, it is legitimate to ask questions about that. Sorry, it just is. If he's mistaken about the demographics, let him be duly raked over the coals for crying wolf unnecessarily. But why call him a racist for apparently being a watchdog against voter fraud?
This blogger was apparently in over his head, and most definitely does not have my respect. Glad his site is down.
If the price is right, UPS and FedEx and other private carriers will do the job. Let the market decide how much it should cost to ship physical objects.
Maybe it should cost $100 to deliver a physical object to a remote location. Why should cheap delivery anywhere of physical objects be a basic expectation of our society in our modern age? The internet can take care of 2D material. The USPS needs to go where the pony express and the telegraph went; it's not needed anymore.
No, actually the math is just hurtful to them both ways. It sounds great to say fewer letters will lead to lower cost, but it's a slow train to stop, since you still have to retain letter carriers to run all the routes. Maybe they don't have as much to deliver and can cover a wider area, but there's a point of rapidly diminishing efficiency where the whole outfit becomes questionable.
No, it's a moving target. Raise the price and people will buy fewer stamps. It may still be a good idea to raise the price, you just won't magically, linearly balance your books that way.
Maybe. But I think it's days are numbered. At some point it will be cheaper to institutionalize and standardize secure 2D document transmission mechanisms and leave physical object delivery to the private shipping companies. Even today people can have internet access pretty much anywhere in the USA, via dialup. Some people don't have computers, but they can go to a local library to read their mail (and post offices could even be converted into digital mail reading centers cheaper than their continuing delivery services). I think it's inevitable, just a question of when.
According to the Guardian article you linked to, some people have detected a tiny upward trend in the dataset, but it occurs entirely within the margin of error, i.e. within the noise. I'm sure Professor Curry at Georgia Tech feels duly rebuked.:D
You mean avoid the App Stores and just create a conventional web application? Sure, if that's what floats your boat. It all depends on what kind of end user experience you are aiming for. I like native apps myself. I do a lot of iOS App Store and Windows Phone stuff, and have plans to expand into the Windows 8 Store. There are ways to embed HTML5 based UIs in native cross platform apps, but I've never been too impressed by any of them. For ultimate polish and user experience, I think it's best to use each platform's native UI toolkit (just my $0.02).
That is changing, though, and Microsoft is slowly getting their reputation as a credible browser vendor back. Also, many people who develop for the Windows 8 RT environment will choose the new option to write a native app in HTML+javascript, which basically means living in the IE rendering engine.
Well, It is true that is "Hard to know whom to believe" if you can choose the graphics and facts to support your "gut feeling".
I agree completely. For example, most people would panic less if they knew that those graphs you linked to combine some of highest quality measurements we know how to make today, with other data points that are not really measurements of temperature at all, but merely a product of highly uncertain conjecture. Some of that content is practically useless as a presentation of scientific knowledge; but if it showed error estimates, then it would become useless as a tool to promote climate hysteria. And we can't have that. So it continues being what it is.
It appears that there's been no net global warming for 15 years. In reaction to the new data, Professor Judith Curry at Georgia Tech says global warming models are obviously flawed. Professor Phil Jones (2012) from the U. of East Anglia disagrees and says we need to give it more time. Professor Phil Jones back in 2009 disagreed with his modern self, when he said a period of 15 years without upward trend would seriously challenge the models.
One thing is clear, fresh measurements of reality trump empirically derived models every time, and ordinary non-scientists find it difficult to place confidence in the AGW alarmism industry when they have been so overconfident and yet so wrong in their climate trend predictions over the last 15 years. So I'm not saying Phil Jones 2012 is wrong, just that it's awkward to make the case to chase his moving goalposts.
Slashdot Mirror
Everything that Windows 8 brings to the table works against bloatware -- for example, Windows 8 Store apps can't monopolize CPU and memory unless the user deliberately launches and is actively running them, generally speaking. Store apps (aka Metro) are very well behaved due to intentional OS constraints. Desktop apps can still be poorly behaved and set themselves to run on startup, phone home, etc., but that's just because Windows 8 is compatible with poorly behaved apps written for previous Windows versions. Microsoft's Windows 8 software logo requirements for desktop apps mandate that apps _not_ add themselves to the "run on startup" registry keys. But that part is not enforced, which was the right call on Microsoft's part. If they made Windows desktop software a walled garden, everybody here would be screaming bloody murder.
tl;dr version: basically Windows 8 brings a substantial improvement against bloatware in that the RT/Metro/Store side protects your CPU/memory resources from being consumed by it; but the legacy desktop side is still an unlocked experience, and vendors can install junk on there if they want to.
And how, pray tell, do you know that I am "more concerned with them than the boy"?
I have young daughters as well, and I have a similar reaction to Barbie dolls and their ilk, primarily because I don't want my daughters (or my son for that matter) to buy into the whole sexualization/objectification of women mindset. However, I don't reflexively avoid gender-targeted toys. Why should boys and girls have to be indistinguishable in their play preferences? What's wrong with the boys deciding that they like Cars and the girls Disney Princesses, as long as their parents are OK with it?
;)
Don't worry, there are plenty of gender neutral family activities, too. I teach them all to shoot firearms as soon as they're old enough.
It's human nature to want your witch hunt to successfully root out a witch, and it's human nature after the huge endeavor of analyzing DNA from all those people, when they've found a match, to say "let's prosecute". Hence the arrest instead of just an interview. I don't know the truth of the matter, I'm just suspicious.
It almost seems cruel to comment.
What in the world are you talking about? Do you know what "fiscally conservative" means? Maybe if you get more specific instead of using vague and weird figures of speech this will be clearer.
Get educated, dude. The Republican party is the nanny state X10. Party of liberty my ass.
I don't know about the X10 part, it sort of depends what issues are most important to you. Both Republicans and Democrats push for a nanny state in different ways. Since you're obviously already aware of the Republican side, I'll just list a few Democrat ways:
- Restriction of free speech in terms of political donations.
- Restriction of free speech by categorizing it as "hate speech".
- Restriction on commerce -- for example, even if you are an experienced hairdresser, you can't just set up a hair salon in New Orleans (or similarly, drive a taxi in NYC, etc.) due to burdensome and asphyxiating regulations.
- Restriction on commerce -- unions are empowered by law to effectively tax all their non-union coworkers in many states, effectively taking other people's money (and donating a bunch of it to the Democratic party, isn't that convenient?).
- Restriction on personal accumulation of wealth -- forced redistribution appears to be openly embraced by the Democrats these days.
In general, the Republicans are supposed to be the party of smaller government. They've fallen down on the job in many ways, but in that respect they're still a lot better than the Democrats. Obama wants the government to grow without limit and encompass many more areas of our life in this country. To the extent that his vision is realized, the nanny state will grow.
If you get in debt to someone, that person will gain the ability to control your life. If more and more people are beholden to the government, the government will control their lives. Government paying for your healthcare? Oh, then you won't complain if the government tells you not to smoke or eat trans fats anymore, right?
If the size of the trend is greater than the error bars of then trend then you have statistical significance.
I seem to recall that the Guardian article on the controversy quoted a boffin as saying that the trend was a tenth of a degree per decade, plus or minus 1.5 degrees. In other words, over a period of 15 years it was still hidden entirely inside the margin of error.
please discard all GPS units you own
Nah, the GPS thing is a red herring, since we can easily validate that we arrive at our desired destination. Confirmation of predictions of chaotic dynamic systems is rather a different challenge, and error estimation of old temperature proxy data is more voodoo than science at this point.
Former glory?
If the founding fathers had their way, I would still be considered a property. Kindly shove your ideology somewhere else.
Get educated, dude. Many of the founding fathers had already successfully abolished slavery in their states, and were working to do so in all the colonies as soon as they peacefully could.
But you're missing the OP's point, which was that the founding fathers understood the importance of freedom from tyrannical government. Obama is moving us in the direction of the nanny state -- a government that aggressively redistributes money is unlikely to respect private property or private freedoms. Our federal government doesn't know how to shrink itself or avoid interfering in people's lives. People of Obama's mindset want to consolidate the growth and momentum of the country in the public sector, not the private sector. This trend only naturally moves in one direction unless forced by the people to do otherwise. The Revolutionary War was an occasion of forcing an oppressive government to back off, and it was a Good Thing (tm).
The measurable land and air temperature showed no mathematically significant increase over that period; the small increase occurred entirely inside the range of data noise. But it's admittedly overstating the case to say that the temperature didn't go up at all.
It's also true that some of the graphs in your link are overstating their case by presenting very sketchy conjectural model data or drastically less complete measurement summaries in the same chart as modern, rigorous measurements. Extrapolation of empirically derived models of dynamic systems is typically a fool's errand. And when you realize the realistic error involved in these charts it kind of makes you go "hmmm".
I agree with that in a moral sense, but not all murderers are dumb in an IQ sense.
We have to be careful treating technology like this as an infallible oracle.
- Technicians could have made a mistake.
- Our understanding of the science of genetic matching could be flawed in ways that we haven't come to realize yet.
- The guy could have had consensual relations with the girl (creepy though that is) and somebody different murdered her.
It's strange that he volunteered a DNA sample. Hopefully that's just because most criminals are dumb, and not because he's being wrongly accused.
Nobody is being disenfranchised except those people who aren't able to prove their identity. There may be a segment of the population that is either too dumb or incompetent to prove their identity, but it grates on me to hear liberals describe that demographic as minorities and liberals. Many minorities and liberals are very intelligent, thank you very much, and I think anti-anti-voter-fraud people shouldn't slander them like that.
I looked through the cached page, and it was a little disturbing to see a false positive. Specifically, Hallie C. She may or may not be a racist, but clearly the evidence that I saw on the blog was not sufficient to call her one. Apparently she complained that proposed race-based quotas would remove a requirement to work hard in order to get a job (which seems plausible, since it de-emphasizes merit-based competition in order to consider instead the color of your skin). And so our blogger claimed she was saying black people are lazy. Whatever, dude.
Also, the chairman of the Maine Republican party. If black people are not known to live in a town, yet they are bused in to vote, it is legitimate to ask questions about that. Sorry, it just is. If he's mistaken about the demographics, let him be duly raked over the coals for crying wolf unnecessarily. But why call him a racist for apparently being a watchdog against voter fraud?
This blogger was apparently in over his head, and most definitely does not have my respect. Glad his site is down.
If the price is right, UPS and FedEx and other private carriers will do the job. Let the market decide how much it should cost to ship physical objects.
Maybe it should cost $100 to deliver a physical object to a remote location. Why should cheap delivery anywhere of physical objects be a basic expectation of our society in our modern age? The internet can take care of 2D material. The USPS needs to go where the pony express and the telegraph went; it's not needed anymore.
No, actually the math is just hurtful to them both ways. It sounds great to say fewer letters will lead to lower cost, but it's a slow train to stop, since you still have to retain letter carriers to run all the routes. Maybe they don't have as much to deliver and can cover a wider area, but there's a point of rapidly diminishing efficiency where the whole outfit becomes questionable.
No, it's a moving target. Raise the price and people will buy fewer stamps. It may still be a good idea to raise the price, you just won't magically, linearly balance your books that way.
Maybe. But I think it's days are numbered. At some point it will be cheaper to institutionalize and standardize secure 2D document transmission mechanisms and leave physical object delivery to the private shipping companies. Even today people can have internet access pretty much anywhere in the USA, via dialup. Some people don't have computers, but they can go to a local library to read their mail (and post offices could even be converted into digital mail reading centers cheaper than their continuing delivery services). I think it's inevitable, just a question of when.
hilariously stupid
Yeah, we certainly wouldn't want to read anything that met that description.
According to the Guardian article you linked to, some people have detected a tiny upward trend in the dataset, but it occurs entirely within the margin of error, i.e. within the noise. I'm sure Professor Curry at Georgia Tech feels duly rebuked. :D
You mean avoid the App Stores and just create a conventional web application? Sure, if that's what floats your boat. It all depends on what kind of end user experience you are aiming for. I like native apps myself. I do a lot of iOS App Store and Windows Phone stuff, and have plans to expand into the Windows 8 Store. There are ways to embed HTML5 based UIs in native cross platform apps, but I've never been too impressed by any of them. For ultimate polish and user experience, I think it's best to use each platform's native UI toolkit (just my $0.02).
That is changing, though, and Microsoft is slowly getting their reputation as a credible browser vendor back. Also, many people who develop for the Windows 8 RT environment will choose the new option to write a native app in HTML+javascript, which basically means living in the IE rendering engine.
Well, It is true that is "Hard to know whom to believe" if you can choose the graphics and facts to support your "gut feeling".
I agree completely. For example, most people would panic less if they knew that those graphs you linked to combine some of highest quality measurements we know how to make today, with other data points that are not really measurements of temperature at all, but merely a product of highly uncertain conjecture. Some of that content is practically useless as a presentation of scientific knowledge; but if it showed error estimates, then it would become useless as a tool to promote climate hysteria. And we can't have that. So it continues being what it is.
It appears that there's been no net global warming for 15 years. In reaction to the new data, Professor Judith Curry at Georgia Tech says global warming models are obviously flawed. Professor Phil Jones (2012) from the U. of East Anglia disagrees and says we need to give it more time. Professor Phil Jones back in 2009 disagreed with his modern self, when he said a period of 15 years without upward trend would seriously challenge the models.
One thing is clear, fresh measurements of reality trump empirically derived models every time, and ordinary non-scientists find it difficult to place confidence in the AGW alarmism industry when they have been so overconfident and yet so wrong in their climate trend predictions over the last 15 years. So I'm not saying Phil Jones 2012 is wrong, just that it's awkward to make the case to chase his moving goalposts.
What extreme measures?