Iceland, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Estonia, Greece, Spain, Latvia, Romania, the UK, United States, Ireland, and Hungary.
Of that list of 12 nations, the only four are western European nations: the UK, Ireland, Greece, and Iceland. The rest are eastern bloc countries, and of course they're fucked up, but that has little to do with being welfare states.
So we have the UK, fucked up for the same reasons the US is (banking deregulation), Iceland (same thing), Ireland and Greece (no idea about the last two).
Notably not on the list: France, Germany, Spain, Norway, Finland... well, you get the idea.
As for your second link, I'm not sure what you're trying to highlight. Are there particular numbers which indicate one or more of those nations is "on the brink"?
Citation please. Show me the numbers that demonstrate that all those nations you've cited (save Iceland, which everyone knows is fucked, thanks to US-style banking deregulation) are "teetering on the brink". Oh, and please define that... because "teetering on the brink" could mean anything (Iceland, being completely bankrupt, clearly went over the brink, but none of the nations you've listed is anywhere near that kind of crisis).
This isn't insightful, mod me down. I totally misread the GP and thought his first sentence was sarcastic. It wasn't. His point was that, despite being a "welfare state", the US has clearly done alright, and that corporate welfare is the big problem, something which we both agree on.
If we've always been a fascist nation, and we're the sole remaining superpower, the whole welfare-welfare state thing has a pretty good track record, huh?
Speaking as a member of a welfare state that didn't have a massive economic meltdown and continues to tick along while the US flounders, I'd say yeah, it does have a pretty good track record:
Hint: An idea isn't bad just because the American government is too fundamentally fucked up to implement it properly.
Sorry to any part of the world negatively affected by global warming. Where I live (away from the ocean, in a cold climate), a degree warming can only be a good thing.
Fuck no. Assuming you, like I, live in the prairies, then I hope you understand that a) long, cold winters are vital to protect our pine forest from the pine beetle, b) long, cold, snowy winters are very important for the following growing season as they provide much-needed spring-time moisture, and c) changes in temperature also mean changes in rainfall patterns, making drought conditions *far* more likely, something that would be devastating for a region, and a country, strongly dependant on our bread baskets.
What about them? To my knowledge, there's exactly one kind of parasite common to salt water fish that's dangerous for human consumption, and worst case, it gives you a nasty stomach ache (that would be the Cod Worm). And that worm isn't present in all raw fish (tuna and salmon, for example, are worm-free).
Fresh water fish, OTOH, should never be eaten raw.
The e-mailer says: "if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC..." (emphasis added). "Say" sure sounds like he's free-handing it to make it fit better.
No, he's estimating the amount of effect the adjustment to the data will have.
. Where does he ask "what do you think might have caused this blip"?
In a different email? During an F2F conversation? Maybe it's a common knowledge amongst climate researchers?
Again, this is the problem with reading a single email in isolation without context. You have *no* idea what other communication has gone on, or what the background is of the discussion. You're just guessing based on a snapshot in time.
He says he chose the.15 degC figure "deliberately" and then explains the consequences of that choice... but all of the consequences are focused just on how it still leaves a blip, because he thinks "one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip." The next sentence, about other blips showing a land blip of 1.5 to 2 times the ocean blip, fits a bit with your theory, but he doesn't appear to be calculating backwards from the 1.5 to 2 times figure, he doesn't seem to have applied any particular adjustment formula that can be consistently applied to all blips. He just thinks that this one particular blip should be adjusted by.15 degC, to make it fit better.
Sure sounds like he's free-handing it to me.
No, it's called *brainstorming*, and people do that in private conversations. You have no idea what they're actually doing once they put their ideas into practice.
When you read a large number of the e-mails, it becomes clearer and clearer just how much their data must be massaged and adjusted in order to reach the results they have.
That may be, but your selected quote doesn't demonstrate anything even remotely nefarious.
Here we have a group of scientists with a bunch of data, most of which meets what one would expect based on theory and related data. But then there's a blip. So what do you do? Do you assume your entire theory is incorrect or that your experiment is b0rked? Or do you try to understand the blip and determine if it's just an outlier or can be explained away based on known theory?
I would contend that the latter is far more rational than the former.
simply that the mere making of so many free-hand adjustments reduces the possibility that their conclusions are in fact correct.
I'm sorry, at what point did anyone claim to be making "free-hand" adjustments? That implies random, willy-nilly changes to the data in order to fit a model, and there's no evidence such a thing is happening. You're simply inferring that it is the case based on a bunch of informal emails that were originally part of a private conversation, combined with what I can only assume is an irrational distrust of science and scientists.
Far more likely is that you have scientists with a mass of data, and in that data they have outliers. So part of the analysis is to understand those outliers and try and "remove at least part of the... blip" by applying sound reasoning and mathematics to the data.
The only question is why did he choose the words "hide" as opposed to "correct" and "decline" as opposed to "error" which the skeptics (of this breach) are trying to imply, that "hide the decline" has the same meaning as "correct the error". I would argue to everyone, that the word hide implies falsification or concealment.
And the original quote in the RC summary specifically points out why your interpretation isn't necessarily correct.
So, either you're right and they're lying, or the RC article is right and it was a stupid choice of words. And given stupidity is far more common than outright malice, it seems the latter is more likely than the former.
But, in the end, it doesn't matter, because you have a preconceived notion that AGW doesn't exist and that scientists are lying sacks of shit, and therefore confirmation bias will ensure that you will accept only those quotes/emails/documents/etc that confirm your belief, and you will disregard or suitably twist any other information that doesn't fit that bias.
There IS at least some evidence of the falsifying of data. From TFA: "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
Why the hell didn't you quote the rest? Stacking the deck much? Or are you just fishing for modpoints from the nutjobs 'round here?
Here's the entire quote, along with an explanation about why nothing nefarious was actually going on:
No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded "gotcha" phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the 'trick' is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term "trick" to refer to a "a good way to deal with a problem", rather than something that is "secret", and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the 'decline', it is well known that Keith Briffa's maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the "divergence problem"-see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while 'hiding' is probably a poor choice of words (since it is 'hidden' in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.
But, you know, way to do *precisely* what that paragraph was meant to highlight. ie, use "cherry-picked and poorly-worded "gotcha" phrases... pulled out of context" to try and illustrate scientific corruption amongst the science community.
The ubuntu-desktop package is a meta-package and its only purpose is to make sure certain other packages are installed. The worst that can happen during an upgrade is that you miss out on new packages that are considered by the devs to be desired on the default desktop.
Right. So if the devs add, say, a new dbus component that's required for some feature X to work, that component may not be installed, and I could end up with a b0rked machine.
Or, as I said before, "I can't even remove it... without risking breaking upgrades".
If you're worried about breakage, fake OO packages would worry me more.
You're probably right, which only reinforces my point that Ubuntu makes it stupidly difficult to remove unwanted packages from the system.
There are two perfectly usable image viewers -- GQview for Gnome and Gwenview for KDE. They do one thing well -- displaying a directory full of images in a user-friendly way.
Uhuh. And F-Spot is a fully-blown photo management package.
Look, if you want to just "[display] a directory full of images", great, fire up gqview and enjoy! Hell, Ubuntu ships with Eye of Gnome, which will come up by default when you 2x click an image in Nautilus and will happily browse through images in a folder. But if you want arbitrary tagging, query, organizing, and touch-up features (red-eye removal, rotation, scaling, etc), F-Spot is an excellent option.
But, hey, don't let me stop you from bad-mouthing a software package you have, apparently, never even heard of.
This sort of "why bother" and "the rubes can't tell" attitude is why iPhoto and Picasa are the Velveeta of image editors.
Right. And guess what? Your average person likes processed cheese.
Your problem is that, being a snob, you think your values and needs should, apparently, be the basis for how Ubuntu makes their decisions. But they're not. Suck it up.
Since OO.o and Firefox are the two of the major "spotlight" apps of desktop Linux, I wouldn't expect Ubuntu to remove them from their "ubuntu-desktop" meta-package.
Uh. Why? Removing it from the meta-package doesn't mean it's suddenly unavailable. Well, install it by default for all I care, but give me a fucking switch in an Advanced dialog somewhere to turn it off. Hell, don't even do that... just let me uninstall it without having to go through gymnastics, FFS!
As an aside, I said this was my biggest gripe. But with that said, I've been using Linux since the old two-dozen-floppy-Slackware days, and Ubuntu is, hands down, the best integrated, cleanest, most fully-featured Linux distro I've ever used. And it's Debian roots make me happy, as I'm a former Debian convert. As such, it's not like I'm planning to switch distros over this. It's just really irritating (though, in the grand scheme of things, a relatively minor annoyance).:)
I have never understood why Linux distros think major applications should be part of the base install. It makes no sense.
This is actually my biggest gripe with Ubuntu. Back in the day when bandwidth was more precious and floppy disks were a pain, the installer would ask you, at minimum, that category of applications you wanted to install. Why on earth doesn't Ubuntu offer similar functionality? What if I *don't* want OO.o installed?
Worse, because of the ubuntu-desktop meta-package, I can't even remove it (well, I can, but I have to create dummy OO.o packages to satisfy ubuntu-desktop's dependencies) without risking breaking upgrades. Such a pain in the ass...
Your personal freedoms and right to anonymity end when you use equipment that is not your own (but your company) and you are doing it while on the clock for purposes other than those tasked to you while on the clock.
Huh. So, based on that logic, I suppose you feel whistle blowing should be illegal and punishable?
So why did you say: "My music is categorized by artist, and subcategorized by CD. All this is done automatically, with very little effort on my part"? Clearly that's a flat out lie. Your computer did none of that automatically. You did it yourself by manually entering the metadata, just as you would for any tag-based metadata system.
Or they feel they can do a better job and see no point in wasting time trying to fix Sourceforge, which has been on a steadily decline since it first hit the OSS scene?
Seriously, SF has plenty of resources behind it... the fact that it sucks (IMHO) suggests there's something systemic going on there, and if I were MS, I wouldn't want to go anywhere near it.
Ugh, 'cuz sourceforge sucks balls? Shitty layout. Slow as hell. Seriously, I welcome a decent alternative to SourceForge (not that this is necessarily it).
No, that's why liquid nitrogen shouldn't be taken lightly:
He reportedly said afterwards he had been trying to fill a gas lighter but his 16-year-old girlfriend said he was attempting to empty the bottle./blockquote.
No matter which one of those claims is true, either way, he's a fucking idiot.
Doing food chemistry in the kitchen is just novelty. The restaurant is loved because it's new and exciting to the jaded, idle rich.
As opposed to jaded, bored Slashdot nerds?:)
Applying our understanding of the human body and food chemistry to the art of creating great food makes a ton of sense. It allows one to create new, unique experiences, be it flavours, textures, colours, etc, and to do so optimizing for what we know about human anatomy (an excellent example of this is the use of atomizers to stimulate olfactory senses).
That's not to say it isn't a novelty. But it's also a) a really good idea, and b) something I think we'll only see *more* of, not less. Hell, the entire manufactured foods industry is based on the application of food science. The only difference is that the goal, there, is to make large quantities cheaply. So why not take that same knowledge, and instead create *great* food?
No, glibc is an implementation of the POSIX standard, as is OpenJVM of the Java standard. You have defined APIs and defined returns and you implement that standard.
That's not what WINE does.
Uh, no, that's exactly what Wine does. I mean, literally, it's exactly the same thing. Sure, the "APIs and... returns" aren't as well defined, but it's still an API, and Wine simply implements it.
Hell, you can actually use Wine's implementation of the Windows DLLs to replace MS's implementation of those DLLs, and in fact that's one way Wine is tested. Given that, it should be blatantly obvious that all Wine is is a reimplementation of the Windows API stack that happens to be portable enough to run on the Linux kernel (among others... including Windows, weirdly enough).
In all reality VMWare is an emulator too, it emulates a physical PC which you can then install an OS on.
Of course, no one would argue with that, as it's clear VMWare is simulating actual hardware. But this isn't remotely what Wine does.
Slashdot Mirror
Whoops, forgot Spain which, last I checked, wasn't an Eastern Bloc country. Still, the point remains...
Weird, your first link includes:
Iceland, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Estonia, Greece, Spain, Latvia, Romania, the UK, United States, Ireland, and Hungary.
Of that list of 12 nations, the only four are western European nations: the UK, Ireland, Greece, and Iceland. The rest are eastern bloc countries, and of course they're fucked up, but that has little to do with being welfare states.
So we have the UK, fucked up for the same reasons the US is (banking deregulation), Iceland (same thing), Ireland and Greece (no idea about the last two).
Notably not on the list: France, Germany, Spain, Norway, Finland... well, you get the idea.
As for your second link, I'm not sure what you're trying to highlight. Are there particular numbers which indicate one or more of those nations is "on the brink"?
Citation please. Show me the numbers that demonstrate that all those nations you've cited (save Iceland, which everyone knows is fucked, thanks to US-style banking deregulation) are "teetering on the brink". Oh, and please define that... because "teetering on the brink" could mean anything (Iceland, being completely bankrupt, clearly went over the brink, but none of the nations you've listed is anywhere near that kind of crisis).
This isn't insightful, mod me down. I totally misread the GP and thought his first sentence was sarcastic. It wasn't. His point was that, despite being a "welfare state", the US has clearly done alright, and that corporate welfare is the big problem, something which we both agree on.
If we've always been a fascist nation, and we're the sole remaining superpower, the whole welfare-welfare state thing has a pretty good track record, huh?
Speaking as a member of a welfare state that didn't have a massive economic meltdown and continues to tick along while the US flounders, I'd say yeah, it does have a pretty good track record:
Hint: An idea isn't bad just because the American government is too fundamentally fucked up to implement it properly.
Sorry to any part of the world negatively affected by global warming. Where I live (away from the ocean, in a cold climate), a degree warming can only be a good thing.
Fuck no. Assuming you, like I, live in the prairies, then I hope you understand that a) long, cold winters are vital to protect our pine forest from the pine beetle, b) long, cold, snowy winters are very important for the following growing season as they provide much-needed spring-time moisture, and c) changes in temperature also mean changes in rainfall patterns, making drought conditions *far* more likely, something that would be devastating for a region, and a country, strongly dependant on our bread baskets.
What about them? To my knowledge, there's exactly one kind of parasite common to salt water fish that's dangerous for human consumption, and worst case, it gives you a nasty stomach ache (that would be the Cod Worm). And that worm isn't present in all raw fish (tuna and salmon, for example, are worm-free).
Fresh water fish, OTOH, should never be eaten raw.
The e-mailer says: "if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC..." (emphasis added). "Say" sure sounds like he's free-handing it to make it fit better.
No, he's estimating the amount of effect the adjustment to the data will have.
. Where does he ask "what do you think might have caused this blip"?
In a different email? During an F2F conversation? Maybe it's a common knowledge amongst climate researchers?
Again, this is the problem with reading a single email in isolation without context. You have *no* idea what other communication has gone on, or what the background is of the discussion. You're just guessing based on a snapshot in time.
He says he chose the .15 degC figure "deliberately" and then explains the consequences of that choice... but all of the consequences are focused just on how it still leaves a blip, because he thinks "one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip." The next sentence, about other blips showing a land blip of 1.5 to 2 times the ocean blip, fits a bit with your theory, but he doesn't appear to be calculating backwards from the 1.5 to 2 times figure, he doesn't seem to have applied any particular adjustment formula that can be consistently applied to all blips. He just thinks that this one particular blip should be adjusted by .15 degC, to make it fit better.
Sure sounds like he's free-handing it to me.
No, it's called *brainstorming*, and people do that in private conversations. You have no idea what they're actually doing once they put their ideas into practice.
When you read a large number of the e-mails, it becomes clearer and clearer just how much their data must be massaged and adjusted in order to reach the results they have.
That may be, but your selected quote doesn't demonstrate anything even remotely nefarious.
Here we have a group of scientists with a bunch of data, most of which meets what one would expect based on theory and related data. But then there's a blip. So what do you do? Do you assume your entire theory is incorrect or that your experiment is b0rked? Or do you try to understand the blip and determine if it's just an outlier or can be explained away based on known theory?
I would contend that the latter is far more rational than the former.
simply that the mere making of so many free-hand adjustments reduces the possibility that their conclusions are in fact correct.
I'm sorry, at what point did anyone claim to be making "free-hand" adjustments? That implies random, willy-nilly changes to the data in order to fit a model, and there's no evidence such a thing is happening. You're simply inferring that it is the case based on a bunch of informal emails that were originally part of a private conversation, combined with what I can only assume is an irrational distrust of science and scientists.
Far more likely is that you have scientists with a mass of data, and in that data they have outliers. So part of the analysis is to understand those outliers and try and "remove at least part of the ... blip" by applying sound reasoning and mathematics to the data.
The only question is why did he choose the words "hide" as opposed to "correct" and "decline" as opposed to "error" which the skeptics (of this breach) are trying to imply, that "hide the decline" has the same meaning as "correct the error". I would argue to everyone, that the word hide implies falsification or concealment.
And the original quote in the RC summary specifically points out why your interpretation isn't necessarily correct.
So, either you're right and they're lying, or the RC article is right and it was a stupid choice of words. And given stupidity is far more common than outright malice, it seems the latter is more likely than the former.
But, in the end, it doesn't matter, because you have a preconceived notion that AGW doesn't exist and that scientists are lying sacks of shit, and therefore confirmation bias will ensure that you will accept only those quotes/emails/documents/etc that confirm your belief, and you will disregard or suitably twist any other information that doesn't fit that bias.
Why the hell didn't you quote the rest? Stacking the deck much? Or are you just fishing for modpoints from the nutjobs 'round here?
Here's the entire quote, along with an explanation about why nothing nefarious was actually going on:
But, you know, way to do *precisely* what that paragraph was meant to highlight. ie, use "cherry-picked and poorly-worded "gotcha" phrases ... pulled out of context" to try and illustrate scientific corruption amongst the science community.
1. uses Mono.
How does it feel being a religious zealot?
2. doesn't do anything useful for a real user -- it's either too much or too little.
In your opinion.
Congrats on a pointless post! But you're right, Ubuntu should really configure their distribution based on your personal biases and opinions.
The ubuntu-desktop package is a meta-package and its only purpose is to make sure certain other packages are installed. The worst that can happen during an upgrade is that you miss out on new packages that are considered by the devs to be desired on the default desktop.
Right. So if the devs add, say, a new dbus component that's required for some feature X to work, that component may not be installed, and I could end up with a b0rked machine.
Or, as I said before, "I can't even remove it ... without risking breaking upgrades".
If you're worried about breakage, fake OO packages would worry me more.
You're probably right, which only reinforces my point that Ubuntu makes it stupidly difficult to remove unwanted packages from the system.
Uhuh. Did you even both reading my post? Here, let me reiterate:
Now, before you tell me I'm wrong, let me quote the description for the meta-package:
So, yes, I could remove it. But judging from that description, I'm gonna have to assume that's a generally bad idea.
There are two perfectly usable image viewers -- GQview for Gnome and Gwenview for KDE. They do one thing well -- displaying a directory full of images in a user-friendly way.
Uhuh. And F-Spot is a fully-blown photo management package.
Look, if you want to just "[display] a directory full of images", great, fire up gqview and enjoy! Hell, Ubuntu ships with Eye of Gnome, which will come up by default when you 2x click an image in Nautilus and will happily browse through images in a folder. But if you want arbitrary tagging, query, organizing, and touch-up features (red-eye removal, rotation, scaling, etc), F-Spot is an excellent option.
But, hey, don't let me stop you from bad-mouthing a software package you have, apparently, never even heard of.
This sort of "why bother" and "the rubes can't tell" attitude is why iPhoto and Picasa are the Velveeta of image editors.
Right. And guess what? Your average person likes processed cheese.
Your problem is that, being a snob, you think your values and needs should, apparently, be the basis for how Ubuntu makes their decisions. But they're not. Suck it up.
Since OO.o and Firefox are the two of the major "spotlight" apps of desktop Linux, I wouldn't expect Ubuntu to remove them from their "ubuntu-desktop" meta-package.
Uh. Why? Removing it from the meta-package doesn't mean it's suddenly unavailable. Well, install it by default for all I care, but give me a fucking switch in an Advanced dialog somewhere to turn it off. Hell, don't even do that... just let me uninstall it without having to go through gymnastics, FFS!
As an aside, I said this was my biggest gripe. But with that said, I've been using Linux since the old two-dozen-floppy-Slackware days, and Ubuntu is, hands down, the best integrated, cleanest, most fully-featured Linux distro I've ever used. And it's Debian roots make me happy, as I'm a former Debian convert. As such, it's not like I'm planning to switch distros over this. It's just really irritating (though, in the grand scheme of things, a relatively minor annoyance). :)
I have never understood why Linux distros think major applications should be part of the base install. It makes no sense.
This is actually my biggest gripe with Ubuntu. Back in the day when bandwidth was more precious and floppy disks were a pain, the installer would ask you, at minimum, that category of applications you wanted to install. Why on earth doesn't Ubuntu offer similar functionality? What if I *don't* want OO.o installed?
Worse, because of the ubuntu-desktop meta-package, I can't even remove it (well, I can, but I have to create dummy OO.o packages to satisfy ubuntu-desktop's dependencies) without risking breaking upgrades. Such a pain in the ass...
Your personal freedoms and right to anonymity end when you use equipment that is not your own (but your company) and you are doing it while on the clock for purposes other than those tasked to you while on the clock.
Huh. So, based on that logic, I suppose you feel whistle blowing should be illegal and punishable?
So why did you say: "My music is categorized by artist, and subcategorized by CD. All this is done automatically, with very little effort on my part"? Clearly that's a flat out lie. Your computer did none of that automatically. You did it yourself by manually entering the metadata, just as you would for any tag-based metadata system.
Or they feel they can do a better job and see no point in wasting time trying to fix Sourceforge, which has been on a steadily decline since it first hit the OSS scene?
Seriously, SF has plenty of resources behind it... the fact that it sucks (IMHO) suggests there's something systemic going on there, and if I were MS, I wouldn't want to go anywhere near it.
Ugh, 'cuz sourceforge sucks balls? Shitty layout. Slow as hell. Seriously, I welcome a decent alternative to SourceForge (not that this is necessarily it).
No, that's why liquid nitrogen shouldn't be taken lightly:
Doing food chemistry in the kitchen is just novelty. The restaurant is loved because it's new and exciting to the jaded, idle rich.
As opposed to jaded, bored Slashdot nerds? :)
Applying our understanding of the human body and food chemistry to the art of creating great food makes a ton of sense. It allows one to create new, unique experiences, be it flavours, textures, colours, etc, and to do so optimizing for what we know about human anatomy (an excellent example of this is the use of atomizers to stimulate olfactory senses).
That's not to say it isn't a novelty. But it's also a) a really good idea, and b) something I think we'll only see *more* of, not less. Hell, the entire manufactured foods industry is based on the application of food science. The only difference is that the goal, there, is to make large quantities cheaply. So why not take that same knowledge, and instead create *great* food?
No, glibc is an implementation of the POSIX standard, as is OpenJVM of the Java standard. You have defined APIs and defined returns and you implement that standard.
That's not what WINE does.
Uh, no, that's exactly what Wine does. I mean, literally, it's exactly the same thing. Sure, the "APIs and ... returns" aren't as well defined, but it's still an API, and Wine simply implements it.
Hell, you can actually use Wine's implementation of the Windows DLLs to replace MS's implementation of those DLLs, and in fact that's one way Wine is tested. Given that, it should be blatantly obvious that all Wine is is a reimplementation of the Windows API stack that happens to be portable enough to run on the Linux kernel (among others... including Windows, weirdly enough).
In all reality VMWare is an emulator too, it emulates a physical PC which you can then install an OS on.
Of course, no one would argue with that, as it's clear VMWare is simulating actual hardware. But this isn't remotely what Wine does.