They wouldn't have this issue if there wasn't an opposition that will shout it to the heavens every time a mistake or revision is made in relation to global warming but every statement made in support of it is ignored, even if the two are part of the same package.
Well, if global warming alarmists didn't appeal to the perceived authority of "scientific consensus," there wouldn't be loud shouting whenever a mistake in the supposedly unshakable research of climate scientists is pointed out. The left-of-center faction of the political spectrum has latched onto global warming because the solutions just so happen to coincide with their political beliefs (e.g., increased taxes, increased regulation of industry, etc.).
Unfortunately, there is a climate (pardon the pun) that shuns scientists who oppose the current view of global warming. That view is itself based entirely on computer simulations rather than recorded observations. The global temperature record hasn't risen since 1998, which is so contradictory to predictions made by computer simulations that climate scientists are using computer simulations to find explanations for the missing heat that was predicted by the previous computer simulations.
What started out as a well-supported observation that the earth was starting to slowly warm
This isn't even true; global temperatures haven't risen since 1998. This contradicts computer simulation--the primary source of current global warming consensus--to such a degree that climate scientists are searching for hypotheses to explain the missing heat. So now people are coming up with explanations for the observations that don't match their predictions. Truly the scientific method at work.
Note that the the research in the article I linked also comes exclusively from a computer simulation; there isn't actually any recorded observation that the "missing heat" is in the oceans. It's just a guess. I suspect many environmentalists are unaware that global warming consensus comes entirely from simulations written by humans and not actual recorded observation.
People are clearly demonstrating they can't be trusted to keep it off the phone (I also imagine there was a little bit of pressure from tablet makers wanting to establish a market before the knock-offs could drop the price point).
Can't be trusted to use an OS how they wanted to? Do you not see how such restrictions and artificial headstarts are against the spirit of openness that Google claimed Android represented?
You're right. Most people aren't ideologues and don't care whether something is open source or not, which is why the walled garden you dislike is so hugely successful compared to Android's approach, which seems to have only served as a platform for malware.
Each tenet of his philosophy?! How can something be open or free at all if the source code isn't even available? That's the fundamental basis of the whole idea.
Because Google has been promoting its supposed openness for years now, so it's kind of a big deal when one of the founders of the movement calls them out.
Of course it's not. Not only is it not free in the RMS sense of the world, withholding source is not the openness Google always claimed it was promoting. Android exists solely to get people onto Google services for purposes of web advertising. The only reason it got so much support from techies is because it runs on Linux, and Google's PR department convinced them that it represented the usual unrealistic OSS fantasies about free ecosystems. Most users don't even care about such things. Apple is still the #1 smartphone vendor, and iOS the #1 mobile operating system counting iPads, iPhones, and iPods.
Remember, Google's main business is a closed, proprietary product--the search engine. Web traffic is regulated by a closed product run by an advertising megacorp. They are not some benevolent cheerleader of openness. They won't even implement Do Not Track in Chrome because it would interfere with their ad business.
I can see why Apple has gone to the darkside of law suits.
Because Samsung is ripping them off. Why is it so hard for Slashdotters to acknowledge that, yes, there are valid patent lawsuits and, yes, there are Asian companies that do nothing but clone American products?
Is it because Apple is one of Google's competitors? Are we supposed to automatically side with Google on everything?
If I only got my news from Slashdot every day, I'd probably have an alarmist worldview too, yet in spite of your dire hypotheticals, the world's technology is totally amazing right now and better than ever.
Slashdot posts so many patent stories because it generates pageviews. Always gotta have something for people to raise their fists over.
If a private company gropes you, public opinion forces them to change or they go out of business from driving away airport travelers. If the government gropes you, they tell you "tough shit," which is what the TSA has been saying for the last 12 months.
It intrigues me that so many people still don't understand the huge disadvantages that come with government control, especially when they bitch so much about corporate monopolies. Governments don't have to compete for you as a customer because you're forced to use them, and you're required by law to fund their paychecks.
What are you talking about? Privatization generally leads to more for less. Airport security has already been privatized in other countries; the U.S. would just be catching up in that regard.
How is this +5 Funny? What does it even mean? Is Slashdot really so shallow-minded that all you have to do is repeat a very tired Star Wars line and vaguely tie it to the topic of conversation to get modded up?
Slashdot Mirror
It's absolutely unacceptable, and it's telling that you're so out-of-touch that you think it's okay.
Well, if global warming alarmists didn't appeal to the perceived authority of "scientific consensus," there wouldn't be loud shouting whenever a mistake in the supposedly unshakable research of climate scientists is pointed out. The left-of-center faction of the political spectrum has latched onto global warming because the solutions just so happen to coincide with their political beliefs (e.g., increased taxes, increased regulation of industry, etc.).
Unfortunately, there is a climate (pardon the pun) that shuns scientists who oppose the current view of global warming. That view is itself based entirely on computer simulations rather than recorded observations. The global temperature record hasn't risen since 1998, which is so contradictory to predictions made by computer simulations that climate scientists are using computer simulations to find explanations for the missing heat that was predicted by the previous computer simulations.
Welcome to climate science.
This isn't even true; global temperatures haven't risen since 1998. This contradicts computer simulation--the primary source of current global warming consensus--to such a degree that climate scientists are searching for hypotheses to explain the missing heat. So now people are coming up with explanations for the observations that don't match their predictions. Truly the scientific method at work.
Note that the the research in the article I linked also comes exclusively from a computer simulation; there isn't actually any recorded observation that the "missing heat" is in the oceans. It's just a guess. I suspect many environmentalists are unaware that global warming consensus comes entirely from simulations written by humans and not actual recorded observation.
Can't be trusted to use an OS how they wanted to? Do you not see how such restrictions and artificial headstarts are against the spirit of openness that Google claimed Android represented?
Then Google can't keep pretending it's an "open platform."
You're right. Most people aren't ideologues and don't care whether something is open source or not, which is why the walled garden you dislike is so hugely successful compared to Android's approach, which seems to have only served as a platform for malware.
Android is by definition a move in the other direction.
Each tenet of his philosophy?! How can something be open or free at all if the source code isn't even available? That's the fundamental basis of the whole idea.
Because Google has been promoting its supposed openness for years now, so it's kind of a big deal when one of the founders of the movement calls them out.
Of course it's not. Not only is it not free in the RMS sense of the world, withholding source is not the openness Google always claimed it was promoting. Android exists solely to get people onto Google services for purposes of web advertising. The only reason it got so much support from techies is because it runs on Linux, and Google's PR department convinced them that it represented the usual unrealistic OSS fantasies about free ecosystems. Most users don't even care about such things. Apple is still the #1 smartphone vendor, and iOS the #1 mobile operating system counting iPads, iPhones, and iPods.
Remember, Google's main business is a closed, proprietary product--the search engine. Web traffic is regulated by a closed product run by an advertising megacorp. They are not some benevolent cheerleader of openness. They won't even implement Do Not Track in Chrome because it would interfere with their ad business.
Because Samsung is ripping them off. Why is it so hard for Slashdotters to acknowledge that, yes, there are valid patent lawsuits and, yes, there are Asian companies that do nothing but clone American products?
Is it because Apple is one of Google's competitors? Are we supposed to automatically side with Google on everything?
Yes, how dare Apple protect itself from rip-off artists. Google's acquisition of Motorola was nothing but two years of revenue down the toilet in an act of desperation.
If I only got my news from Slashdot every day, I'd probably have an alarmist worldview too, yet in spite of your dire hypotheticals, the world's technology is totally amazing right now and better than ever.
Slashdot posts so many patent stories because it generates pageviews. Always gotta have something for people to raise their fists over.
What does this even mean? What "real patents?" Samsung is a known rip-off manufacturer.
What the hell are you talking about? Smartphones are computers with cellular radios. The phone functionality is just another app.
If a private company gropes you, public opinion forces them to change or they go out of business from driving away airport travelers. If the government gropes you, they tell you "tough shit," which is what the TSA has been saying for the last 12 months.
It intrigues me that so many people still don't understand the huge disadvantages that come with government control, especially when they bitch so much about corporate monopolies. Governments don't have to compete for you as a customer because you're forced to use them, and you're required by law to fund their paychecks.
What are you talking about? Privatization generally leads to more for less. Airport security has already been privatized in other countries; the U.S. would just be catching up in that regard.
The media hype made it seem more important than it really was. Same happened with Wave.
MP3 is just as patented as H.264. Do you listen to MP3s?
On Slashdot, competing with Linux is an "attack" and makes you evil.
How is this +5 Funny? What does it even mean? Is Slashdot really so shallow-minded that all you have to do is repeat a very tired Star Wars line and vaguely tie it to the topic of conversation to get modded up?
It simply couldn't have anything to do with your past trolling history.
You are right; 2012 will definitely be the Year of Linux on the Desktop(tm) because Windows 8 comes with a new Start menu.
This community is so out of touch. It's not 1998 anymore. It's okay to stop personally hating "M$".
So don't install those apps.
Anything else I can help you with?