Truly, they sound terrible, so I can see why we would want to keep them from blaspheming the sacred data.
You really don't get it, do you? These jackoffs aren't "blaspheming the sacred data". They're cherry-picking, misquoting, lying, deceiving, and god knows what else, with the goal of discrediting these scientists in the eyes of the public in order to destroy their careers along with their research. Some of them are calling for climatologists to be arrested, ffs. It's a modern-day witchhunt, except the people doing the hunting know full well that they're full of shit, they just don't care so long as they achieve their agenda.
In the face of that, it's entirely understandable that these scientists would rather not load the guns being pointed at them.
No, I'm sick and bloody tired of people claiming to be interested in "rational discussion" while simultaneously engaging in lies, manipulation, slander, cherry-picking, misquoting, and anything else they can to discredit the scientists involved in work on climate change. And, frankly, I think it's high time those engaged in such acts were called out and labeled what they are: lying, devious, politically motivated pseudo-skeptics.
Now are you one of those people? I don't know. But you certainly seem to ascribe to their beliefs.
Are you actually arguing that you cannot do open science in climate science because someone may actually question the results?
No, idiot. Read more carefully.
People aren't "questioning the results". They're lying, spinning, defaming, and otherwise doing whatever the fuck they can to win a PR war. In an environment like that, the scientists would be well advised to be very careful when communicating with the public, as these lying assholes will spin every comment, misquote every statement, distort every fact possible, in order to win the fight.
The fact you believe "it is the climate scientists who sounds like religious fundamentalists" just proves these fucktards are winning, which is rather sad, but inevitable when you have an undereducated populace, and a complex scientific topic where the results are annoyingly inconvenient.
They *aren't* interested in "finding something wrong with it". No, they're interested in waging a PR war. As such, they don't attack the science. They simply misquote the science and the scientists, they lie and deceive, they cheat in order to win a battle that, frankly, they can't help but lose if it were being fought honestly.
And the sad thing is, people are listening to these lying bastards. Oh well, it just goes to show, in the end, facts and reason will lose out to lies and slander.
You misunderstand his comment. His point isn't that we have interested skeptics who just want to assist in the advancement of science. No, what we have are partisan hacks interested in spinning the ambiguous statements, innocent comments in code, climatology jargon (eg, "trick"), so that they can be used as political weapons in an ideological battle against the science and scientists of climatology.
In the face, of that, I'd tell those assholes to fuck off, too. They have no interest in advancing the public discourse, and are only interested in advancing their own agenda in the most dishonest, disrespectful way possible, by attacking the researchers and their research with lies and slander.
In short, to all you faux skeptics who would have us believe you're just heroes fighting the good fight against those evil scientists who want to curb our freedom, I say: fuck off you lying sacks of shit.
Damn right. Why the fuck do people shit all over the trades? I have a bachelors degree in CompSci but I have no fucking clue how to fix a plumbing problem or wire an electrical panel. So does that make me somehow better or worse than the tradesman? Hell no.
Some of us will pay more. Until I see a "Hecho en Mexico" sticker on a bottle of Coca-Cola, I won't buy it. The bottlers there use sugar, while US bottlers use HFCS.
'course, they also use a different recipe, which is probably why you prefer it.
I used to think Canada didn't use HFCS in it's Coke. "But I prefer the taste!" I would say, and that's certainly true. But it has fuck-all to do with the sugar, because they use HFCS here, too. What they *do* do is use a different recipe in Canada, though, hence the flavour difference.
Incidentally, I've also had Mexican Coke, and guess what? It tastes pretty similar to the Canadian version... which is just further evidence that what you prefer is the formula, not the sweetener.
Acting as if theories are somehow more than the current best guess(es) of the scientific method is throwing out the skepticism that is the core of said method.
Oh please, you're no better than the original poster. While you accuse the original poster of overstating the rigor of scientific theories, you massively understate it by bringing them down to the level of mere guesses. Of course, as always, the truth lies somewhere in the middle, but don't delude yourself into thinking that your position is at all superior to that of the OPs. You're simply taking the opposite end of the axis of credulity.
Monitor? What? These things are convertable laptops, ffs. The minute I got my 1.0, I wished it had a touchscreen, as that would make tablet mode a *lot* more useful.
Woah woah woah! Now, those look like "facts" and "numbers". If you can't blurt out baseless opinions and mindless gutfeel like the rest of us, you have no place here!
The 1.5 hardware rev initially debuted last September. The design was filed with the FCC this past February, and they started distributing models through their contributors program a few weeks later. Unfortunately, you still can't get a full machine, or even a motherboard, through the G1G1 program... yet, anyway.
OTOH, subpixel rendering of text uses the fact that the individual elements are next to each other in a predictable pattern to enable (effectively) sub-pixel addressing
Meh, that's just a trick to abuse the fact that the pixel density of an LCD is three times higher if you make use of each colour element as part of the antialiasing trick. But if the colours were colocated, you could have much higher pixel density to begin with, so you wouldn't need this trick in the first place.
Seriously? THAT'S the real problem nowadays? It's not climate change or world hunger or war, it's how we can move people around our dense urban environments as fast as possible? Aren't we all moving fast enough already?
Yes, it's a real problem nowadays.
Have you spent any time in Manhattan? Anyone making the mistake of driving there isn't "moving fast enough" at all, due to the insane congestion created by large volumes of people trying to get from point A to point B quickly. Mass transit of any form is vital in densely packed urban areas, which themselves are far more energy efficient and environmentally friendly than massively spread out urban areas (Houston, I'm looking at you). So if we're interesting in things like energy efficiency and addressing climate change, a big part will be developing systems that will allow people to comfortably live in a smaller geographical footprint. Efficiency transportation is one of those things.
Everyone should know about paper recycling - it costs more to use recycled paper than new. The quality is questionable as well. The result is that most paper is dumped into an incinerator or a landfill by recycling centers because it is pointless to attempt to recycle post-consumer paper.
Plastic bottles can be recycled... except if one tiny little bottle cap or ring gets into the mix the entire batch is worthless. Since this happens most of the time again plastic bottles are not generally recycled.
Fortunately, this being Slashdot, you can make a bunch of off-the-cuff, bullshit claims with no support whatsoever, and bam! +5 insightful.
Really, it's an excellent Slashdot-style karma-whore-post:
1) Derides environmentalist/"green"/liberal ideas, 2) Has an anti-establishment bent, with a "the people are stupid" twist, 3) Heavy dose of smug superiority.
Partial classes, lambda functions, anonymous delegates, and extension methods are an anethema to OOP
That's a great list, but your last statement is simply false.
Smalltalk has blocks (aka, lambdas/anonymous delegates), and a wide open class model far more powerful than C#'s extension methods, and it's the progenitor of every modern OO language that followed.
No, Java has absolutely no excuse for it's historically anaemic featureset (something that at least the JCP is trying to fix). Proper closure support, alone, is enough to clinch the.NET/Java debate for me. Everything else is just gravy.
Unbelievable. Yeah, aside from that kernel that has been continuously developed and refined for almost 2 decades and has had billions of dollars pumped into it,
What part of "UI" don't you get? I'm assuming it's the "interface" part, though maybe the word "user" confuses you...
Either way, I'm done with you. You're clearly incapable of remaining focused on the actual topic at hand.
People like choice. There is room in the market for iOS, Android, Blackberry, Symbian, and the list goes on. I'm not even sure what point you are trying to make.
Then go re-read my post, as clearly your reading comprehension is failing you.
I stated that OSS projects build shitty UIs. The responder said "Hey look, Android is awesome and it's OSS." I responded with "And yet the UI pales compared to a closed-source project like iOS, and it's still a single company driving development, unlike your average OSS project, so it's not even that good an example."
Do you get it now? Do I need to use smaller words?
This is just pure FUD.
No it's not. I invoked no fear, created no uncertainty, nor implied any doubt.
Aside from the kernel (which has fuck-all to do with the UI), does android have a large community of volunteer developers? No. It's no different than, say, Java: virtually all development is done by a single, commercial organization, that then releases their work for free. That's extremely commendable, and I would never claim it's a problem. But it does mean that most of the development is being done by a focused group of paid developers, directed by a company with a unified vision, and that makes it *very very different* from a traditional OSS project like, say, Gnome or KDE. As such, Android can achieve, in the UI, what a typical OSS project seems incapable of.
Now, please, Android-fanboy, leave me alone. This discussion was never meant to be focused on Android versus iOS, it was simply an example, and one I didn't even bring up. It's a broader discussion about the drawbacks of the open source software development model, *specifically in the area of UI development*. If you can't handle that, move on, I have better things to do than deal with the hate-on you have for Apple and the woody you get from Android.
Anyone who's seen an iPhone and an Android phone side-by-side will tell you that the Android interface, while okay, pales beside the iPhone. The latter is just far cleaner and smoother. The touch interface is more responsive. The browser works better. It's just a far better experience. Of course, the iPhone has a ton of other problems (not the least of which is Jobs' intention to keep the software ecosystem a walled garden), but as a general rule (save for a few places, like the alerts system), the UI is not one of them.
Besides which, Android, while its source is open, is not what I would call an open source project. It's developed primarily by a single company paying their developers to build Android full time. And yet it's still behind iOS in terms of usability.
In the short term give me dissenting theories and present them in an unbiased fashion as possible and I can make my own decisions on what I believe that you very much.
Problem: You probably can't. Do you have an education in earth and atmospheric sciences? Physics? Chemistry? Math? Statistics? Because you need knowledge from at least a few of those disciplines to evaluate AGW, or any theory which claims to debunk it. Otherwise you're just using "common sense" and "gutfeel", neither of which is either reliable or scientific.
And even if you can, the *vast* majority of people can't. They are *entirely* unequipped to evaluate the validity of the science supporting AGW. And for them, the fact that the majority of scientists agree, and that no one has been able to come up with a theory to displace it, or evidence which thoroughly disproves it, should be more than enough to convince them that it's real.
But it's not. Instead, they prefer to attack the scientists doing the work, because, let's face it, their conclusions are rather inconvenient, and they'd much rather believe the liar on Fox telling me everything is fine over the scientists telling me that I, and the rest of humanity, need to start taking better care of our planet before we fuck ourselves.
I'd like to see this in an open source hardware project to create what we all thought was going to be the crunchpad. This would be so cool.
Unfortunately, the hardware is just a part of the equation. The other side is really solid, touch-capable software. And, despite being a Linux user for, oh, 15 years now, there's one thing I can say about the open source community: in the 15 years I've been involved with Linux, OSS developers still can't seem to get a handle on building intuitive, user-friendly, clean, fluid user interfaces.
Unless you find fault in the facts supporting the theory of AGW, a misquoted sealevel figure for the Netherlands is neither here nor there. It's indicative of nothing.
I mean, honestly, we're dealing with a *massive* report. And this is the best the AGW deniers can do? Really? In all these years?? Shit, if that doesn't prove the validity of the report, I don't know what does.
Slashdot Mirror
Ahh yes, because I'm sure there'll be no negative consequences to destroying a species that's relatively low in the food chain...
Great, the food-equivalent of the "I don't own a TV" guy is out in full force today... seriously, I'm practically choking in the smug.
They could just focus on bankrupting college students as a business, and not even bother to create an incentive to go to the theaters.
Well, yeah, or they could, like, make decent movies.
But I suppose that's too much to ask. Better to just make Dances with Wolves IN THREE DEE!
Truly, they sound terrible, so I can see why we would want to keep them from blaspheming the sacred data.
You really don't get it, do you? These jackoffs aren't "blaspheming the sacred data". They're cherry-picking, misquoting, lying, deceiving, and god knows what else, with the goal of discrediting these scientists in the eyes of the public in order to destroy their careers along with their research. Some of them are calling for climatologists to be arrested, ffs. It's a modern-day witchhunt, except the people doing the hunting know full well that they're full of shit, they just don't care so long as they achieve their agenda.
In the face of that, it's entirely understandable that these scientists would rather not load the guns being pointed at them.
No, I'm sick and bloody tired of people claiming to be interested in "rational discussion" while simultaneously engaging in lies, manipulation, slander, cherry-picking, misquoting, and anything else they can to discredit the scientists involved in work on climate change. And, frankly, I think it's high time those engaged in such acts were called out and labeled what they are: lying, devious, politically motivated pseudo-skeptics.
Now are you one of those people? I don't know. But you certainly seem to ascribe to their beliefs.
Are you actually arguing that you cannot do open science in climate science because someone may actually question the results?
No, idiot. Read more carefully.
People aren't "questioning the results". They're lying, spinning, defaming, and otherwise doing whatever the fuck they can to win a PR war. In an environment like that, the scientists would be well advised to be very careful when communicating with the public, as these lying assholes will spin every comment, misquote every statement, distort every fact possible, in order to win the fight.
The fact you believe "it is the climate scientists who sounds like religious fundamentalists" just proves these fucktards are winning, which is rather sad, but inevitable when you have an undereducated populace, and a complex scientific topic where the results are annoyingly inconvenient.
They only want to find something wrong with it!
Ah, clever, if only that were the case.
They *aren't* interested in "finding something wrong with it". No, they're interested in waging a PR war. As such, they don't attack the science. They simply misquote the science and the scientists, they lie and deceive, they cheat in order to win a battle that, frankly, they can't help but lose if it were being fought honestly.
And the sad thing is, people are listening to these lying bastards. Oh well, it just goes to show, in the end, facts and reason will lose out to lies and slander.
You misunderstand his comment. His point isn't that we have interested skeptics who just want to assist in the advancement of science. No, what we have are partisan hacks interested in spinning the ambiguous statements, innocent comments in code, climatology jargon (eg, "trick"), so that they can be used as political weapons in an ideological battle against the science and scientists of climatology.
In the face, of that, I'd tell those assholes to fuck off, too. They have no interest in advancing the public discourse, and are only interested in advancing their own agenda in the most dishonest, disrespectful way possible, by attacking the researchers and their research with lies and slander.
In short, to all you faux skeptics who would have us believe you're just heroes fighting the good fight against those evil scientists who want to curb our freedom, I say: fuck off you lying sacks of shit.
Damn right. Why the fuck do people shit all over the trades? I have a bachelors degree in CompSci but I have no fucking clue how to fix a plumbing problem or wire an electrical panel. So does that make me somehow better or worse than the tradesman? Hell no.
Some of us will pay more. Until I see a "Hecho en Mexico" sticker on a bottle of Coca-Cola, I won't buy it. The bottlers there use sugar, while US bottlers use HFCS.
'course, they also use a different recipe, which is probably why you prefer it.
I used to think Canada didn't use HFCS in it's Coke. "But I prefer the taste!" I would say, and that's certainly true. But it has fuck-all to do with the sugar, because they use HFCS here, too. What they *do* do is use a different recipe in Canada, though, hence the flavour difference.
Incidentally, I've also had Mexican Coke, and guess what? It tastes pretty similar to the Canadian version... which is just further evidence that what you prefer is the formula, not the sweetener.
Acting as if theories are somehow more than the current best guess(es) of the scientific method is throwing out the skepticism that is the core of said method.
Oh please, you're no better than the original poster. While you accuse the original poster of overstating the rigor of scientific theories, you massively understate it by bringing them down to the level of mere guesses. Of course, as always, the truth lies somewhere in the middle, but don't delude yourself into thinking that your position is at all superior to that of the OPs. You're simply taking the opposite end of the axis of credulity.
Monitor? What? These things are convertable laptops, ffs. The minute I got my 1.0, I wished it had a touchscreen, as that would make tablet mode a *lot* more useful.
Woah woah woah! Now, those look like "facts" and "numbers". If you can't blurt out baseless opinions and mindless gutfeel like the rest of us, you have no place here!
The 1.5 hardware rev initially debuted last September. The design was filed with the FCC this past February, and they started distributing models through their contributors program a few weeks later. Unfortunately, you still can't get a full machine, or even a motherboard, through the G1G1 program... yet, anyway.
OTOH, subpixel rendering of text uses the fact that the individual elements are next to each other in a predictable pattern to enable (effectively) sub-pixel addressing
Meh, that's just a trick to abuse the fact that the pixel density of an LCD is three times higher if you make use of each colour element as part of the antialiasing trick. But if the colours were colocated, you could have much higher pixel density to begin with, so you wouldn't need this trick in the first place.
Seriously? THAT'S the real problem nowadays? It's not climate change or world hunger or war, it's how we can move people around our dense urban environments as fast as possible? Aren't we all moving fast enough already?
Yes, it's a real problem nowadays.
Have you spent any time in Manhattan? Anyone making the mistake of driving there isn't "moving fast enough" at all, due to the insane congestion created by large volumes of people trying to get from point A to point B quickly. Mass transit of any form is vital in densely packed urban areas, which themselves are far more energy efficient and environmentally friendly than massively spread out urban areas (Houston, I'm looking at you). So if we're interesting in things like energy efficiency and addressing climate change, a big part will be developing systems that will allow people to comfortably live in a smaller geographical footprint. Efficiency transportation is one of those things.
Recycling at an energy/material loss
Pro-tip: Recycling paper (or plastic, or aluminum, or...) isn't about just maximizing energy efficiency. Just food for thought.
Everyone should know about paper recycling - it costs more to use recycled paper than new. The quality is questionable as well. The result is that most paper is dumped into an incinerator or a landfill by recycling centers because it is pointless to attempt to recycle post-consumer paper.
Plastic bottles can be recycled... except if one tiny little bottle cap or ring gets into the mix the entire batch is worthless. Since this happens most of the time again plastic bottles are not generally recycled.
Fortunately, this being Slashdot, you can make a bunch of off-the-cuff, bullshit claims with no support whatsoever, and bam! +5 insightful.
Really, it's an excellent Slashdot-style karma-whore-post:
1) Derides environmentalist/"green"/liberal ideas,
2) Has an anti-establishment bent, with a "the people are stupid" twist,
3) Heavy dose of smug superiority.
You couldn't have played it any better. Kudos!
Partial classes, lambda functions, anonymous delegates, and extension methods are an anethema to OOP
That's a great list, but your last statement is simply false.
Smalltalk has blocks (aka, lambdas/anonymous delegates), and a wide open class model far more powerful than C#'s extension methods, and it's the progenitor of every modern OO language that followed.
No, Java has absolutely no excuse for it's historically anaemic featureset (something that at least the JCP is trying to fix). Proper closure support, alone, is enough to clinch the .NET/Java debate for me. Everything else is just gravy.
Unbelievable. Yeah, aside from that kernel that has been continuously developed and refined for almost 2 decades and has had billions of dollars pumped into it,
What part of "UI" don't you get? I'm assuming it's the "interface" part, though maybe the word "user" confuses you...
Either way, I'm done with you. You're clearly incapable of remaining focused on the actual topic at hand.
People like choice. There is room in the market for iOS, Android, Blackberry, Symbian, and the list goes on. I'm not even sure what point you are trying to make.
Then go re-read my post, as clearly your reading comprehension is failing you.
I stated that OSS projects build shitty UIs.
The responder said "Hey look, Android is awesome and it's OSS."
I responded with "And yet the UI pales compared to a closed-source project like iOS, and it's still a single company driving development, unlike your average OSS project, so it's not even that good an example."
Do you get it now? Do I need to use smaller words?
This is just pure FUD.
No it's not. I invoked no fear, created no uncertainty, nor implied any doubt.
Aside from the kernel (which has fuck-all to do with the UI), does android have a large community of volunteer developers? No. It's no different than, say, Java: virtually all development is done by a single, commercial organization, that then releases their work for free. That's extremely commendable, and I would never claim it's a problem. But it does mean that most of the development is being done by a focused group of paid developers, directed by a company with a unified vision, and that makes it *very very different* from a traditional OSS project like, say, Gnome or KDE. As such, Android can achieve, in the UI, what a typical OSS project seems incapable of.
Now, please, Android-fanboy, leave me alone. This discussion was never meant to be focused on Android versus iOS, it was simply an example, and one I didn't even bring up. It's a broader discussion about the drawbacks of the open source software development model, *specifically in the area of UI development*. If you can't handle that, move on, I have better things to do than deal with the hate-on you have for Apple and the woody you get from Android.
Anyone who's seen an iPhone and an Android phone side-by-side will tell you that the Android interface, while okay, pales beside the iPhone. The latter is just far cleaner and smoother. The touch interface is more responsive. The browser works better. It's just a far better experience. Of course, the iPhone has a ton of other problems (not the least of which is Jobs' intention to keep the software ecosystem a walled garden), but as a general rule (save for a few places, like the alerts system), the UI is not one of them.
Besides which, Android, while its source is open, is not what I would call an open source project. It's developed primarily by a single company paying their developers to build Android full time. And yet it's still behind iOS in terms of usability.
In the short term give me dissenting theories and present them in an unbiased fashion as possible and I can make my own decisions on what I believe that you very much.
Problem: You probably can't. Do you have an education in earth and atmospheric sciences? Physics? Chemistry? Math? Statistics? Because you need knowledge from at least a few of those disciplines to evaluate AGW, or any theory which claims to debunk it. Otherwise you're just using "common sense" and "gutfeel", neither of which is either reliable or scientific.
And even if you can, the *vast* majority of people can't. They are *entirely* unequipped to evaluate the validity of the science supporting AGW. And for them, the fact that the majority of scientists agree, and that no one has been able to come up with a theory to displace it, or evidence which thoroughly disproves it, should be more than enough to convince them that it's real.
But it's not. Instead, they prefer to attack the scientists doing the work, because, let's face it, their conclusions are rather inconvenient, and they'd much rather believe the liar on Fox telling me everything is fine over the scientists telling me that I, and the rest of humanity, need to start taking better care of our planet before we fuck ourselves.
I'd like to see this in an open source hardware project to create what we all thought was going to be the crunchpad. This would be so cool.
Unfortunately, the hardware is just a part of the equation. The other side is really solid, touch-capable software. And, despite being a Linux user for, oh, 15 years now, there's one thing I can say about the open source community: in the 15 years I've been involved with Linux, OSS developers still can't seem to get a handle on building intuitive, user-friendly, clean, fluid user interfaces.
And that, too, is a logical fallacy.
Unless you find fault in the facts supporting the theory of AGW, a misquoted sealevel figure for the Netherlands is neither here nor there. It's indicative of nothing.
I mean, honestly, we're dealing with a *massive* report. And this is the best the AGW deniers can do? Really? In all these years?? Shit, if that doesn't prove the validity of the report, I don't know what does.