Wrong. Occam's Razor says that, faced with alternate theories both explaining satisfactorily the same phenomena, you must assume as correct that which requires the least assumptions.
How would that apply to the two postulations that:
1) the variability of the Sun's output causes the temperatures on Earth to fluctuate over time
-or-
2) disregarding fossil evidence of the CO2 concentration fluctuating out of sync with the Earth's temperature over time, CO2 concentration is really what's affecting temperature this time, and it's Man's fault, and the only way to solve this is with one-world government policies, even though any proposals on the table will have a negligible effect, and model sensitivity to support such regulator schemes has been shown to be incorrect but must be accepted anyway.
This is all about the EU blocking Oracle's acquisition of Sun. They are trolling for testimonials about how the Sun acquisition would force people to buy Oracle DB, which is almost certainly would not:
What does the EU have against MySQL anyway?
There are two choices here:
1) Oracle can support MySQL. If they try to close it, it will fork. 2) Oracle can compete against MySQL.
Conclusion: some within the EU are positioning to have Oracle crush MySQL.
It can be done better, too. ZFS' cow can be done only for entire filesystems, so you need to mount the snapshot. I have an idea for cloning directory hierarchies, this can be damn more powerful.
How would that work? ZFS filesystems are ~free, though, you could mount a new one at an arbitrary directory location if you really needed it.
Given that of the 16 landers that have been dispatched to Mars, only 6 of them actually ended up on the surface in working order, I think it's more accurate to say that it hasn't been done.
If it's been done once, it's been done. It hasn't been done reliably but that's something different.
Eating a whopper and smoking have a relatively small increase in risk (less than, say, the driver being 30 years old vs 60 years old.)
There have been studies showing that eating and driving is as dangerous as cell phone use while driving. Have you ever seen somebody drive after they've just dropped a cigarette on their lap?
Smacking the kids around is an accepted part of living in society.
Right, cell phones are too new.
Drinking and driving is bad, so we put limits on it, but not absolute prohibitions. Even commercial pilots are not required to absolutely avoid alcohol.
Then why absolute prohibitions on cell phone use? It's been shown that even one drink can impair reaction several hours later. I'm not arguing for the prohibition on buzzed driving, just trusting people to make good judgements most of the time.
Cellphone and driving is a big risk
how are you defining 'big'?
You can pull over if you really need to talk. This seems a pretty standard industrial safety rule/
Often no, pulling over in heavy traffic can be more dangerous, but regardless, if you need to smoke or eat you can pull over too, and who can forget, "don't make me pull this car over!"?
It's undeniable that cell phone usage distracts most drivers and increases danger. But so do myriad other things (eating a Whopper, smoking, smacking the kids around, having just one drink, etc.) and those are not singled out for prosecution.
So the inevitable conclusion is that it's not about safety, it's about taking advantage of the fear of new technology to generate revenue. And nobody respects that.
It turns out that encasing yourself in a 2 ton hunk of steel and plastic and hurtling it down the highway at 70MPH is inherently dangerous. But people make risk-reward calculations and decide to take the risks anyway.
How about if somebody crashes they're fully liable? That would make people actually re-consider.
Until the Supreme Court rules something unconstitutional.
This itself being unconstitutional.
Then no one can do ANYTHING.
The best possible outcome!
Good thing we get to elect the Supreme Court Justi. . . Oh, wait. Well, at least their terms expi. . . Oh, wait.
Yeah, and still only 9 judges for 330,000,000 people and they never have time to hear many important cases and decide those cases as narrowly as possible? FAIL.
CRU wasn't the original source for most of the data, they just held a copy of it, which is why them deleting the data is a total non-issue, most original data is still happily sitting around at their original sources.
Nobody is asking CRU to copy the data sets for them, they're asking CRU to tell them what subsets of data they used from the datasets.
It may be that CRU isn't merely stonewalling - they may have no idea without their original data files that they fed as inputs to their models. But then they're asking people to trust in their infallibility, and that's not how science is done. If it's not independently repeatable it doesn't count (unless it provides politically convenient results, apparently).
Some will still do basic research if it may eventually lead them to money. IBM does some of this, a bunch is done in Japan. Certainly not enough to base a system on, though.
Just out of curiosity, if pure science is not funded by government, how should it be paid for? By private industry? Do you somehow think that we can place greater trust results of science paid for by corporations?
funny, Al Gore has been working environmental issues for at least the better part of 2 decades. People may or may not agree with him, but he's got substantial history on the subject.
He lead the effort to kill safe nuclear technology at Argonne, which was building us reliable power that didn't create CO2.
And then, they hide behind Libertarian principles of freedom when they are most certainly anti-liberty.
In a strong-liberty society pervasive private property rights would preclude pollution. If you pollute my river you have to pay me damages to restore it. Communal property hoses up the equation, and Libertarians advocate for strong personal property rights.
If you really want to investigate the sceptical position, watch this video. There is some childish Al-Gore bashing, but look beyond that to the data from the ocean buoys, satellites, and model sensitivity arguments (the #1 key issue). Also, causation vs. correlation of CO2, the Medieval Warm Period, and temperature and tree ring studies.
One data item he doesn't mention is the sea bed evidence of global climate warming that started before the industrial revolution.
Also check out the 1990 IPCC report's graphs of temperature over the past millennium.
Every time someone talks about how much they like some filesystems on Linux, someone pops up to tell us about how great ZFS is. Well, the license is shit, it was chosen specifically for GPL incompatibility, and sun can fuck off into the air
I think the point is somebody is going on and on about their awesome new buggy whip and somebody pops up and says, "dude, it's the 21st century, buy a fucking car."
But anyway, you identify the real problem well, and there's some hope that Oracle will liberate the talent at Sun from the piss-poor management they've suffered from for a decade and a half.
And if somebody wants to use ZFS on linux, the license doesn't really matter, we have virtualization and lots of abstract filesystem access methods to make it work just fine. It's simply that if Oracle GPL'ed ZFS it would be easier.
So it's not a problem with Linux, but a problem with Sun.
And it's not even a license problem it's a patent problem. Remember how ZFS is like 6000 LoC? It would have been re-implemented by now if not for patents - heck, it's far more useful than many other odd filesystems linux supports.
I suspect the Florida Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee just doesn't understand what the internet really means... which is about information and exposing the truth.
Maybe they know exactly what it means - that most judges would need to recuse themselves in most cases.
Exactly, Schmidt was saying, "hey, the feds make us turn over all of your personal information, so consider yourselves warned." It's being narrowly read as his McNeely moment, which is an incorrect interpretation.
So the SAN freezes again, they want to send a tech back out to get the logs, to which we point out that we've already TRIED that and the whole process repeats.
Somebody isn't getting an answer high enough up the foodchain. Try going through your sales rep. His future commissions are at stake and he has the right phone numbers.
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong. Occam's Razor says that, faced with alternate theories both explaining satisfactorily the same phenomena, you must assume as correct that which requires the least assumptions.
How would that apply to the two postulations that:
1) the variability of the Sun's output causes the temperatures on Earth to fluctuate over time
-or-
2) disregarding fossil evidence of the CO2 concentration fluctuating out of sync with the Earth's temperature over time, CO2 concentration is really what's affecting temperature this time, and it's Man's fault, and the only way to solve this is with one-world government policies, even though any proposals on the table will have a negligible effect, and model sensitivity to support such regulator schemes has been shown to be incorrect but must be accepted anyway.
This is all about the EU blocking Oracle's acquisition of Sun. They are trolling for testimonials about how the Sun acquisition would force people to buy Oracle DB, which is almost certainly would not:
What does the EU have against MySQL anyway?
There are two choices here:
1) Oracle can support MySQL. If they try to close it, it will fork.
2) Oracle can compete against MySQL.
Conclusion: some within the EU are positioning to have Oracle crush MySQL.
It can be done better, too. ZFS' cow can be done only for entire filesystems, so you need to mount the snapshot. I have an idea for cloning directory hierarchies, this can be damn more powerful.
How would that work? ZFS filesystems are ~free, though, you could mount a new one at an arbitrary directory location if you really needed it.
Why do you think the company stock goes up when a bunch of you are laid off?
Stock market valuation is a poor indicator of a company's long term prospects. Next quarter numbers, maybe.
Given that of the 16 landers that have been dispatched to Mars, only 6 of them actually ended up on the surface in working order, I think it's more accurate to say that it hasn't been done.
If it's been done once, it's been done. It hasn't been done reliably but that's something different.
Eating a whopper and smoking have a relatively small increase in risk (less than, say, the driver being 30 years old vs 60 years old.)
There have been studies showing that eating and driving is as dangerous as cell phone use while driving. Have you ever seen somebody drive after they've just dropped a cigarette on their lap?
Smacking the kids around is an accepted part of living in society.
Right, cell phones are too new.
Drinking and driving is bad, so we put limits on it, but not absolute prohibitions. Even commercial pilots are not required to absolutely avoid alcohol.
Then why absolute prohibitions on cell phone use? It's been shown that even one drink can impair reaction several hours later. I'm not arguing for the prohibition on buzzed driving, just trusting people to make good judgements most of the time.
Cellphone and driving is a big risk
how are you defining 'big'?
You can pull over if you really need to talk. This seems a pretty standard industrial safety rule/
Often no, pulling over in heavy traffic can be more dangerous, but regardless, if you need to smoke or eat you can pull over too, and who can forget, "don't make me pull this car over!"?
It's undeniable that cell phone usage distracts most drivers and increases danger. But so do myriad other things (eating a Whopper, smoking, smacking the kids around, having just one drink, etc.) and those are not singled out for prosecution.
So the inevitable conclusion is that it's not about safety, it's about taking advantage of the fear of new technology to generate revenue. And nobody respects that.
It turns out that encasing yourself in a 2 ton hunk of steel and plastic and hurtling it down the highway at 70MPH is inherently dangerous. But people make risk-reward calculations and decide to take the risks anyway.
How about if somebody crashes they're fully liable? That would make people actually re-consider.
Until the Supreme Court rules something unconstitutional.
This itself being unconstitutional.
Then no one can do ANYTHING.
The best possible outcome!
Good thing we get to elect the Supreme Court Justi. . . Oh, wait. Well, at least their terms expi. . . Oh, wait.
Yeah, and still only 9 judges for 330,000,000 people and they never have time to hear many important cases and decide those cases as narrowly as possible? FAIL.
CRU wasn't the original source for most of the data, they just held a copy of it, which is why them deleting the data is a total non-issue, most original data is still happily sitting around at their original sources.
Nobody is asking CRU to copy the data sets for them, they're asking CRU to tell them what subsets of data they used from the datasets.
It may be that CRU isn't merely stonewalling - they may have no idea without their original data files that they fed as inputs to their models. But then they're asking people to trust in their infallibility, and that's not how science is done. If it's not independently repeatable it doesn't count (unless it provides politically convenient results, apparently).
Some will still do basic research if it may eventually lead them to money. IBM does some of this, a bunch is done in Japan. Certainly not enough to base a system on, though.
Just out of curiosity, if pure science is not funded by government, how should it be paid for? By private industry? Do you somehow think that we can place greater trust results of science paid for by corporations?
Why not private foundations?
funny, Al Gore has been working environmental issues for at least the better part of 2 decades. People may or may not agree with him, but he's got substantial history on the subject.
He lead the effort to kill safe nuclear technology at Argonne, which was building us reliable power that didn't create CO2.
That he profits from that effort is clear.
And then, they hide behind Libertarian principles of freedom when they are most certainly anti-liberty.
In a strong-liberty society pervasive private property rights would preclude pollution. If you pollute my river you have to pay me damages to restore it. Communal property hoses up the equation, and Libertarians advocate for strong personal property rights.
If you really want to investigate the sceptical position, watch this video. There is some childish Al-Gore bashing, but look beyond that to the data from the ocean buoys, satellites, and model sensitivity arguments (the #1 key issue). Also, causation vs. correlation of CO2, the Medieval Warm Period, and temperature and tree ring studies.
One data item he doesn't mention is the sea bed evidence of global climate warming that started before the industrial revolution.
Also check out the 1990 IPCC report's graphs of temperature over the past millennium.
(You misspelled "uninformed" twice... May you never find yourself in front of a uniformed judge.)
Don't most of them wear black dresses anyhow?
There are too many laws on the books, and it is now impossible to be a law abiding citizen
TFTFU
am looking into having my vasectomy reversed so that I can sire a firstborn son and sacrifice him to you.
OK, that's just creepy.
Every time someone talks about how much they like some filesystems on Linux, someone pops up to tell us about how great ZFS is. Well, the license is shit, it was chosen specifically for GPL incompatibility, and sun can fuck off into the air
I think the point is somebody is going on and on about their awesome new buggy whip and somebody pops up and says, "dude, it's the 21st century, buy a fucking car."
But anyway, you identify the real problem well, and there's some hope that Oracle will liberate the talent at Sun from the piss-poor management they've suffered from for a decade and a half.
And if somebody wants to use ZFS on linux, the license doesn't really matter, we have virtualization and lots of abstract filesystem access methods to make it work just fine. It's simply that if Oracle GPL'ed ZFS it would be easier.
So it's not a problem with Linux, but a problem with Sun.
And it's not even a license problem it's a patent problem. Remember how ZFS is like 6000 LoC? It would have been re-implemented by now if not for patents - heck, it's far more useful than many other odd filesystems linux supports.
To play out those scenarios the marginal powers probably don't launch on an ICBM with a trackable trajectory, they deploy it over sea or similar.
Or maybe if they're devious they sneak it into their neighbor's country and launch it from there.
The trouble with any-lateral disarmament is that people lie. But it's possible the risks aren't in MAD's favor either.
I guess we'll see when San Diego takes one on the cheek.
I suspect the Florida Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee just doesn't understand what the internet really means ... which is about information and exposing the truth.
Maybe they know exactly what it means - that most judges would need to recuse themselves in most cases.
A propulsion system that doesn't depend on squirting stuff out of the back of the ship opens up all sorts of possibilities.
One quarter impulse, Mr. Sulu.
Apparently that episode of Voyager wasn't so retarded after all.
If the conclusion is that any episode of Voyager wasn't retarded then you've post the question incorrectly.
Exactly, Schmidt was saying, "hey, the feds make us turn over all of your personal information, so consider yourselves warned." It's being narrowly read as his McNeely moment, which is an incorrect interpretation.
I'm sure Microsoft would never do such a thing.
So the SAN freezes again, they want to send a tech back out to get the logs, to which we point out that we've already TRIED that and the whole process repeats.
Somebody isn't getting an answer high enough up the foodchain. Try going through your sales rep. His future commissions are at stake and he has the right phone numbers.
What the fuck kind of grammar is that?
It's a multiprocessing world now. Try as you might, we'll never go back to monolithic single cores. Singular verbs have been similarly deprecated.