Good job focusing on two interface elements and ignoring all the others. Since the introduction of the steering wheel and foot pedals, we have
* electric start instead of cranking the engine * the introduction of the ignition key * shifters moving from steering column to floorboard * turn signals instead of hand signals * cruise control instead of pressing down the accelerator * a bunch of buttons on the wheel for cruise control * a bunch of buttons on the wheel for radio * the loss of the clutch pedal in most vehicles * the introduction of windshield wipers and mirrors and headlights
None of these are "trends for trend sake". All you've got on your list is
* steering wheels are still round * the gas pedal is still to the right of the brake pedal
And by the way, steering wheels don't work exactly the way they used to, and neither do gas pedals
* steering wheels are smaller now, and when you turn them a machine turns the wheels instead of you turning them directly * floor pedals sometimes move themselves, as with cruise control or emergency braking
All that said, I still don't like Gnome 3. Some change is good, some is bad. You're allowed to have an opinion on Gnome, even if your car analogy is a bad analogy.
Um, no. We don't keep investigating the claims of nincompoops and fraudsters. If the boy has cried wolf too many times in the past, then sorry, the village can't be bothered to go look for the wolf this time. If Watts wanted scientific credibility, then he should have demonstrated scientific integrity in the past. We don't have time to repeatedly debunk nonsense from the same guy over and over.
There might be a difference. The ID folks and the vaccine-autism folks almost certainly believe what they say, but it's not clear whether Watts and his ilk believe what they say. They might be pure shills. It's very hard to be sure.
I disagree with that sentiment. While it is strictly true that being a dumbass uneducated mook doesn't mean that you are wrong, it does mean that there is ample reason to ignore or at least be skeptical of thing you say. If a dumbass uneducated mook says crazy shit contrary to things said by the worldwide cadre of educated earnest scientists, then I think it is quite reasonable to ignore the dumbass uneducated mook. We don't have time to listen to the batshit insane ramblings of every dumbass uneducated mook, nor even of more than a small number of them. Sorry, Mr. Watts just isn't one of that small number, for most of us. You know, I also don't get my climate science from the homeless guy who shits in my company's doorway and talks about how ravens steal his farts.
So, then, you concur that Einstein was a journal-published doctor of the science of physics. And you agree that Watts is not journal-published and is not a doctor, nor a master, nor even a bachelor of... well according to this not of anything.
I'm not sure how you jump from "journal-published PhD" to "no credentials", can you explain that a little better? You somehow equate the credentials of a "non-established but journal-published PhD" with "non-established hack with no degree whatsoever". You know who else is a non-established hack with no degree? A few billion people who I also don't listen to when it comes to complicated science.
Watts is certainly qualified to have an opinion. Opinions are fine. It's his statements of fact which are wrong. Watts is a dum-dum spouting dum-dum nonsense and trying to heckle real scientists. It's a free country and he's allowed to do that, and people like you are allowed to have the "opinion" that he's a real smart guy, but please forgive the rest of us for disagreeing.
I think you either don't understand that statement, or don't understand science. I suspect the former; let me explain. A researcher who wants to propose a new theory which overturns a previously widely accepted theory must demonstrate extraordinary evidence, which would mean a large number of high-quality data points, large enough and high quality enough to overcome all the evidence which led to the acceptance of the previous theory.
For instance, quantum mechanics is an extraordinary claim. Nobody would believe it unless it came with a metric shit-ton of evidence, enough to overcome the entire body of scientific observations up to that point. And lo! it does come with that evidence.
The point is that evidence is not all equally valid, which is what you seem to imply. No, you can't overturn everything we know about the universe with "the same evidence as" a theory which is consistent with everything we know about the universe. I'm sure you know all of this. Perhaps you were trying to make a rhetorical point or something, but you didn't make it well.
That's funny because I always figured the opposite was true. A million-year cycle is slow enough for life to evolve. A 100 year cycle is not. The quick change from colder to hotter is the problem.
Yes. You are correct. They are being billed for ads which are not reaching real people. Likewise, people who pay for broadcast TV commercials are billed for people who mute their televisions, or go to the bathroom during commercial breaks.
It is the responsibility of the advertiser to determine whether or not the ads they purchase are worth the money. This is a classic difficult business problem, one taught in classrooms for many many years. It's not new and it's not unique to Facbook -- but it is real and a legitimate concern.
There is no "one side". Fame and riches await the first person who can convince informed scientists that AGW theory is wrong. So far, nobody has gotten that fame and riches; so far, it's just a bunch of nincompoops shilling for oil companies, able to convince some Fox News viewers, and few others.
Only in rare circumstances. I recently heard a program about a guy who was trying to solve the Pioneer Anomaly, and he had to go find old boxes of punch cards and convert that data, in order to determine the spacecraft's exact positions when it was still in the Solar System. But yeah, pretty rare.
You're right to be skeptical. Windows versions are like Star Trek movies: every second one sucks, then the one after that is better again. Seriously, look at this pattern:
Windows 8 (?????) Windows 7 Windows Vista (sucked) Windows XP Windows ME (sucked) Windows 2000 Windows 95 (sucked) Windows NT Windows 3.1 (sucked)
No! Microsoft does not deserve foregiveness. They foisted upon the world Windows for God's sake! We are still suffering that hellwhore of an operating system! No! They would have to apologize for that before they would ever deserve any sympathy.
I don't know, man. Yes, mobile is different than desktop, but each of them has an overlapping shared demographic called "web browser". My tablet does in fact stand in for my laptop often.
Yeah I agree with you. Somebody would have shot the guy, if a number of the patrons were packing. We don't need everyone packing, but maybe a well-trained five percent would be enough.
Seriously! Tim McVeigh was just "expressing discontent with the US government", and yet the courts "upheld his conviction"! THAT IS RIDICULOUS! Any time we express discontent, that is protected! Right on, brother.
Only states can protect us now. They have such a stellar track record of protecting their citizens, so that makes perfect sense. Remember back when the federal government was trying to force blacks to go to separate schools, but the states put their foot down and insisted on integration? That was a shining moment for the states. And these days, the federal government is trying to force people to follow one specific religion, but once again the states are saying NO, we won't have any of these establishment violations, we insist on protecting the rights of people to choose their own religion!
Maybe, but I would imagine the moon would experience a much greater amount of water loss into space. If one could estimate the differing rates, then maybe the moon could provide another line of evidence.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll let you know after they grope my private parts.
Good job focusing on two interface elements and ignoring all the others. Since the introduction of the steering wheel and foot pedals, we have
* electric start instead of cranking the engine
* the introduction of the ignition key
* shifters moving from steering column to floorboard
* turn signals instead of hand signals
* cruise control instead of pressing down the accelerator
* a bunch of buttons on the wheel for cruise control
* a bunch of buttons on the wheel for radio
* the loss of the clutch pedal in most vehicles
* the introduction of windshield wipers and mirrors and headlights
None of these are "trends for trend sake". All you've got on your list is
* steering wheels are still round
* the gas pedal is still to the right of the brake pedal
And by the way, steering wheels don't work exactly the way they used to, and neither do gas pedals
* steering wheels are smaller now, and when you turn them a machine turns the wheels instead of you turning them directly
* floor pedals sometimes move themselves, as with cruise control or emergency braking
All that said, I still don't like Gnome 3. Some change is good, some is bad. You're allowed to have an opinion on Gnome, even if your car analogy is a bad analogy.
Um, no. We don't keep investigating the claims of nincompoops and fraudsters. If the boy has cried wolf too many times in the past, then sorry, the village can't be bothered to go look for the wolf this time. If Watts wanted scientific credibility, then he should have demonstrated scientific integrity in the past. We don't have time to repeatedly debunk nonsense from the same guy over and over.
There might be a difference. The ID folks and the vaccine-autism folks almost certainly believe what they say, but it's not clear whether Watts and his ilk believe what they say. They might be pure shills. It's very hard to be sure.
I disagree with that sentiment. While it is strictly true that being a dumbass uneducated mook doesn't mean that you are wrong, it does mean that there is ample reason to ignore or at least be skeptical of thing you say. If a dumbass uneducated mook says crazy shit contrary to things said by the worldwide cadre of educated earnest scientists, then I think it is quite reasonable to ignore the dumbass uneducated mook. We don't have time to listen to the batshit insane ramblings of every dumbass uneducated mook, nor even of more than a small number of them. Sorry, Mr. Watts just isn't one of that small number, for most of us. You know, I also don't get my climate science from the homeless guy who shits in my company's doorway and talks about how ravens steal his farts.
So, then, you concur that Einstein was a journal-published doctor of the science of physics. And you agree that Watts is not journal-published and is not a doctor, nor a master, nor even a bachelor of... well according to this not of anything.
I'm not sure how you jump from "journal-published PhD" to "no credentials", can you explain that a little better? You somehow equate the credentials of a "non-established but journal-published PhD" with "non-established hack with no degree whatsoever". You know who else is a non-established hack with no degree? A few billion people who I also don't listen to when it comes to complicated science.
Watts is certainly qualified to have an opinion. Opinions are fine. It's his statements of fact which are wrong. Watts is a dum-dum spouting dum-dum nonsense and trying to heckle real scientists. It's a free country and he's allowed to do that, and people like you are allowed to have the "opinion" that he's a real smart guy, but please forgive the rest of us for disagreeing.
I think you either don't understand that statement, or don't understand science. I suspect the former; let me explain. A researcher who wants to propose a new theory which overturns a previously widely accepted theory must demonstrate extraordinary evidence, which would mean a large number of high-quality data points, large enough and high quality enough to overcome all the evidence which led to the acceptance of the previous theory.
For instance, quantum mechanics is an extraordinary claim. Nobody would believe it unless it came with a metric shit-ton of evidence, enough to overcome the entire body of scientific observations up to that point. And lo! it does come with that evidence.
The point is that evidence is not all equally valid, which is what you seem to imply. No, you can't overturn everything we know about the universe with "the same evidence as" a theory which is consistent with everything we know about the universe. I'm sure you know all of this. Perhaps you were trying to make a rhetorical point or something, but you didn't make it well.
A short term (~100yr) variation is nothing.
That's funny because I always figured the opposite was true. A million-year cycle is slow enough for life to evolve. A 100 year cycle is not. The quick change from colder to hotter is the problem.
Yes. You are correct. They are being billed for ads which are not reaching real people. Likewise, people who pay for broadcast TV commercials are billed for people who mute their televisions, or go to the bathroom during commercial breaks.
It is the responsibility of the advertiser to determine whether or not the ads they purchase are worth the money. This is a classic difficult business problem, one taught in classrooms for many many years. It's not new and it's not unique to Facbook -- but it is real and a legitimate concern.
Then you're not part of the set and your comment is off topic.
There is no "one side". Fame and riches await the first person who can convince informed scientists that AGW theory is wrong. So far, nobody has gotten that fame and riches; so far, it's just a bunch of nincompoops shilling for oil companies, able to convince some Fox News viewers, and few others.
That must be the same reason that Jews get together for Hollocaust parties.
/rolls eyes
You know, dude, my abacus has NEVER crashed, not once EVER*. Therefore, all modern computers are unreliable.
* except that time I dropped it
Only in rare circumstances. I recently heard a program about a guy who was trying to solve the Pioneer Anomaly, and he had to go find old boxes of punch cards and convert that data, in order to determine the spacecraft's exact positions when it was still in the Solar System. But yeah, pretty rare.
I assume it's the loser who gets the job at Microsoft. I wonder what the winners get?
SQL Server on Linux boxes.
Oh, god, I just vomited in the back of my throat.
You're right to be skeptical. Windows versions are like Star Trek movies: every second one sucks, then the one after that is better again. Seriously, look at this pattern:
Windows 8 (?????)
Windows 7
Windows Vista (sucked)
Windows XP
Windows ME (sucked)
Windows 2000
Windows 95 (sucked)
Windows NT
Windows 3.1 (sucked)
No! Microsoft does not deserve foregiveness. They foisted upon the world Windows for God's sake! We are still suffering that hellwhore of an operating system! No! They would have to apologize for that before they would ever deserve any sympathy.
I don't know, man. Yes, mobile is different than desktop, but each of them has an overlapping shared demographic called "web browser". My tablet does in fact stand in for my laptop often.
Yeah I agree with you. Somebody would have shot the guy, if a number of the patrons were packing. We don't need everyone packing, but maybe a well-trained five percent would be enough.
All the rest of you need to calm down. I'm pretty sure this is one of those fake-post "poe" things. You all got poe'd.
Many, many of us "refuse to subscribe" due to the commercials. Same with commercial radio.
Seriously! Tim McVeigh was just "expressing discontent with the US government", and yet the courts "upheld his conviction"! THAT IS RIDICULOUS! Any time we express discontent, that is protected! Right on, brother.
Only states can protect us now. They have such a stellar track record of protecting their citizens, so that makes perfect sense. Remember back when the federal government was trying to force blacks to go to separate schools, but the states put their foot down and insisted on integration? That was a shining moment for the states. And these days, the federal government is trying to force people to follow one specific religion, but once again the states are saying NO, we won't have any of these establishment violations, we insist on protecting the rights of people to choose their own religion!
Maybe, but I would imagine the moon would experience a much greater amount of water loss into space. If one could estimate the differing rates, then maybe the moon could provide another line of evidence.
Close, but not quite. What the article is saying is that rocks carrying massive amounts of water naturally came to the Earth.
PS All non-zero amounts of water are massive.
I doubt it. I think you all got trolled. But, it's hard to say for sure.