The fundamental problem is that the relative market share is such that a whole lot of OEM's won't bother with non-Microsoft hardware. Given Microsoft's market share, they won't see adequate money in it (there would be money, just not enough). Add in Microsoft's perpensity to bully and persuade OEM's, the hardware just won't be there for the most part.
And this still doesn't address the problem of not really owning your hardware, which is what this change does. You will be absolutely limited in what software your hardware can run.
Yeah, yeah, I know. Facebook sucks and all that. But - if you do have a Facebook account, posting a little blurb that tells your friends in your own words why SOPA/PIPA are evil, then letting them know that even a few sentence email to their congress critters goes into the balance and counts, along with the links to get hold of them helps.
Skeptic indicates a certain level of rational thought, which includes scientific rebuttal of the body of evidence supporting the climate change theory.
That is not the case with the deniers. They have a few well rebutted talking points that they continually repeat.
But nice try on trying to somehow paint the rational thinkers in the debate as anti-semetic. Thanks for playing, and a happy fuck you for that slimeball attempt.
It had 3146 Earth Scientists respond, of which 77 were climatologists. Is there any number you won't twist? No wonder people don't trust science these days. It's not the science or the math; it's the folks who, for whatever reason, don't want to hear what it says.
Links, please, to back up where you believe the science is faulty, and to back up your premise that if you disagree with the general consensus of climatologists that it's hard to get funding. I just don't buy that; especially not with the general Republican stance. They love their climate denial scientists lots. Though, they seem to have a lot of trouble finding any to fund. And thus, they try to cut funding for ALL climate change research.
I do know, however, that GWBush tried to silence NASA scientists from talking about Global Warming, and that House Republicans are still at it (we all know how biased NASA is, right?/snark)
So, please. If you're going to make assertions, back them up. Otherwise, it's just faith based denial.
There really is a lot of corporatebasedfunding for anti-climate change "science". (Though, right there, it's not really science, as it starts with bias. But the funding is there.)
And even when they manage to get scientists to go along with the whole denial thing, it has been known to backfire. Rather spectacularly.
The fallacy of your argument is this: you equate the leaders of the argument of both sides, and give them equal footing.
Leading those who accept the scientific evidence are... the scientists. Yes, the people who train for their lives, who thrive on evidence, logic and the scientific method. To be sure, some are corrupt, but if you argue the majority of them are, then you are effectively arguing against the entire profession. You sure you want to go there?
These groups are not equally qualified to talk about the matter. And to paint the entire climatologist community as high priests is to equate their science with religion, which is in and of itself a fallacy. An effective one, but a fallacy nevertheless.
The deniers call those who accept the scientific consensus a chorus "true believers". I respond with multiple sources reporting on a poll of the scientific community - and it gets down-modded as flame bait.
Who, exactly, is the fanatic here who isn't operating in a reality based world?
I think that if you take the time to read it, you'll find that yeah, most climatologist (and the scientific community in general) do think that not only is it happening, but that it's man made.
So, do you doubt the veracity of the poll (did you read the articles to find out who preformed it?) or do you doubt the ability of the news agencies cited to convey the information?
Here's another source, this one with a breakdown of the results in graph form:
Your "side" never publishes facts, just conjecture that will support your view [1]. Yet, your "side" is always claiming to be scientific in approach, and claiming that those who accept the evidence at hand it is happening are somehow the ones who are faith based in their outlook.
However, here's a more in depth picture. That 97%: it's climatologists. The other article was incorrect, as the general scientific community at large is only 90%.
In other words, all the folks whose job it is to make predictions about what could go wrong and prepare for those things think that we're running such an experiment, and that it won't end well.
Climate change shouldn't be accepted because "there's no scientific proof". But even though 97% of the world's scientists feel that such proof does exist, we shouldn't believe them, because they aren't qualified... to... talk... about...... science.....?
But consider this: the folks whose job it is to make predictions tend to think that the impact will be felt sooner, rather than later. Folks like those who work in thePentagon and theCDC, not to mention an overwhelming majority of the world's scientists.
And if they're teaching it right, then they're also teaching that if verifiable evidence arises that contradicts it, that the theory is modified or thrown away.
Let's keep in mind that the deniers don't even want mention of the possibility that we humans just might be making a real mess of the eco system that we rely upon to exist. That might cut into profits.
PS: No, not everyone agreed with Einstein allthetime.
... will now sue Apple for being similar to their products, taking inspiration from an existing product, and causing marketplace confusion in the textbook market.
Well, certainly I hear the term "bona fide bug" thrown around a lot in the workplace, meaning "actual, legitimate, proven to exist bug" - perhaps technically a misuse, but a pretty common one...
Slashdot Mirror
That's the thing. You won't even be able to jailbreak.
The fundamental problem is that the relative market share is such that a whole lot of OEM's won't bother with non-Microsoft hardware. Given Microsoft's market share, they won't see adequate money in it (there would be money, just not enough). Add in Microsoft's perpensity to bully and persuade OEM's, the hardware just won't be there for the most part.
And this still doesn't address the problem of not really owning your hardware, which is what this change does. You will be absolutely limited in what software your hardware can run.
I'm amazed - even with the extremely visible 'net protests - that they're covering it.
Because as of a week ago, absolutely no MSN prime time news broadcasts had.
And even then. Lock it ALL down? Back to sneaker nets.
Yeah, yeah, I know. Facebook sucks and all that. But - if you do have a Facebook account, posting a little blurb that tells your friends in your own words why SOPA/PIPA are evil, then letting them know that even a few sentence email to their congress critters goes into the balance and counts, along with the links to get hold of them helps.
To contact your representative:
https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml
To contact your senator:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Skeptic indicates a certain level of rational thought, which includes scientific rebuttal of the body of evidence supporting the climate change theory.
That is not the case with the deniers. They have a few well rebutted talking points that they continually repeat.
But nice try on trying to somehow paint the rational thinkers in the debate as anti-semetic. Thanks for playing, and a happy fuck you for that slimeball attempt.
It had 3146 Earth Scientists respond, of which 77 were climatologists. Is there any number you won't twist? No wonder people don't trust science these days. It's not the science or the math; it's the folks who, for whatever reason, don't want to hear what it says.
Also, you might want to read up on statistical sample sizes.
At this point, the Null Result is our survival as a species.
Links, please, to back up where you believe the science is faulty, and to back up your premise that if you disagree with the general consensus of climatologists that it's hard to get funding. I just don't buy that; especially not with the general Republican stance. They love their climate denial scientists lots. Though, they seem to have a lot of trouble finding any to fund. And thus, they try to cut funding for ALL climate change research.
I do know, however, that GWBush tried to silence NASA scientists from talking about Global Warming, and that House Republicans are still at it (we all know how biased NASA is, right? /snark)
So, please. If you're going to make assertions, back them up. Otherwise, it's just faith based denial.
Really?
There really is a lot of corporate based funding for anti-climate change "science". (Though, right there, it's not really science, as it starts with bias. But the funding is there.)
And even when they manage to get scientists to go along with the whole denial thing, it has been known to backfire. Rather spectacularly.
The fallacy of your argument is this: you equate the leaders of the argument of both sides, and give them equal footing.
Leading those who accept the scientific evidence are... the scientists. Yes, the people who train for their lives, who thrive on evidence, logic and the scientific method. To be sure, some are corrupt, but if you argue the majority of them are, then you are effectively arguing against the entire profession. You sure you want to go there?
Leading the other side are those who profit from denial, and those who just don't want to change their way of life, or have religious beliefs about the matter.
These groups are not equally qualified to talk about the matter. And to paint the entire climatologist community as high priests is to equate their science with religion, which is in and of itself a fallacy. An effective one, but a fallacy nevertheless.
Oh, this is rich irony.
The deniers call those who accept the scientific consensus a chorus "true believers". I respond with multiple sources reporting on a poll of the scientific community - and it gets down-modded as flame bait.
Who, exactly, is the fanatic here who isn't operating in a reality based world?
Here's the original study.
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
I think that if you take the time to read it, you'll find that yeah, most climatologist (and the scientific community in general) do think that not only is it happening, but that it's man made.
I dunno. How many times are you folks going to say, "Thrag no believe in round Earth"?
So, do you doubt the veracity of the poll (did you read the articles to find out who preformed it?) or do you doubt the ability of the news agencies cited to convey the information?
Here's another source, this one with a breakdown of the results in graph form:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97_of_active_climatologists_ag.php
Here's the original paper:
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
See, this is the problem with this debate.
Your "side" never publishes facts, just conjecture that will support your view [1]. Yet, your "side" is always claiming to be scientific in approach, and claiming that those who accept the evidence at hand it is happening are somehow the ones who are faith based in their outlook.
However, here's a more in depth picture. That 97%: it's climatologists. The other article was incorrect, as the general scientific community at large is only 90%.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97_of_active_climatologists_ag.php
[1] Conflating weather with climate doesn't count.
Oh, we're doing an experiment, all right. Unfortunately, if it pans out the way the vast majority of the scientific community, the military, the disease control folks and the insurance industry thinks it will, we're all pretty much screwed.
In other words, all the folks whose job it is to make predictions about what could go wrong and prepare for those things think that we're running such an experiment, and that it won't end well.
So, let me get this straight.
Climate change shouldn't be accepted because "there's no scientific proof". But even though 97% of the world's scientists feel that such proof does exist, we shouldn't believe them, because they aren't qualified... to... talk... about...... science.....?
Do you understand the Peer Review process, or are you obfuscating from a position of faith or economic interest?
Maybe not.
But consider this: the folks whose job it is to make predictions tend to think that the impact will be felt sooner, rather than later. Folks like those who work in the Pentagon and the CDC, not to mention an overwhelming majority of the world's scientists.
So, 97% of the world's scientists are religious zealots?
Damn that chorus of 'true believers' - aka, 97% of the worlds scientists:
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/06/scientists-overwhelmingly-believe-in-man-made-climate-change/1
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-19/world/eco.globalwarmingsurvey_1_global-warming-climate-science-human-activity?_s=PM:WORLD
So - you do understand what a theory is, right?
And if they're teaching it right, then they're also teaching that if verifiable evidence arises that contradicts it, that the theory is modified or thrown away.
Let's keep in mind that the deniers don't even want mention of the possibility that we humans just might be making a real mess of the eco system that we rely upon to exist. That might cut into profits.
PS: No, not everyone agreed with Einstein all the time.
... will now sue Apple for being similar to their products, taking inspiration from an existing product, and causing marketplace confusion in the textbook market.
Well, certainly I hear the term "bona fide bug" thrown around a lot in the workplace, meaning "actual, legitimate, proven to exist bug" - perhaps technically a misuse, but a pretty common one...