A) and B) are evaluated by independent studies over different data. The result is diddly point squat. C) is bollocks. If two methods independenty give strongly agreeable results, the most likely assumption is that both were done correctly. Please also clarify what the vaguely stated "comparison of methods" actually means. D) I'd be the last one to deny that. This does not, however, prevent programs from working correctly most of the time. And see the above: their software basically has a test suite and passes it.
How about Redwine or Geri Halliwell? It's hard to check people who may or may not exist. But yes, there may even be a few actual researchers there. I have no time to check now.
Now, answer my question: Show me a single government funded study that concluded the less government intervention is required? Why would AGW be any different?
Among the first few Google results on "deregulation study" comes this:
Seven years of deregulation in Canada's natural gas market have ushered in "a large number of buyers and sellers," says a new study prepared for Canada's National Energy Board.
The CRU has in their power to silence their critics by full release of the methods, data and code used to perform their analysis. Without all three, there can be *no* independent verification of their results.
I understand that outside of non-scientific "sceptical" community, nobody cares. Because there have been multiple independent studies of similarly obtained data, all of which giving agreeable results. You may take it as evidence of vast conspiracy, but most reasonable people just seem to conclude that it worked, and they didn't make anything up. And, as I said, there are data sets out there, go ahead and run the numbers.
will only result in even more scrutiny, and will result in climate change being questioned by even more people.
So why don't you cut the empty "questioning", the answers to which are never going to please you, lift your behind from the armchair and perform your own analysis of the publicly available data? These guys are at least trying.
And it's more entertaining because the proponents of AGW have been shutting down monitoring in remote locations and encouraging more monitoring where there are large thermal accumulators in the form of pavement and buildings.
No, they haven't. Next time before repeating a tired old bullshit, could you be bothered to run a two-minute investigation with Google (or Bing if you prefer) that will point you to a credible rebuttal from actual scientists? Thank you.
Somehow this does not happen, despite a similar situation to Arizona's: there is a huge eastern neighbor Russia, with a similar difference in quality of life and spotty law enforcement (now there spot checks for papers are the norm, usually to extract bribes).
And I live in a pretty laid-back country, too (Finland).
In Finland, nobody requires you to carry papers that prove that you are here legally. On the other hand, I always carry the national ID card with me; it tells nothing of my visa status, but this being Finland, I presume the police can check this online. I've never seen them doing spot checks at least on pedestrians, so I guess they have other means to catch overstayers. The trick is, you don't get access to so many services if you don't have the ID that it's probably like living off the grid. Such is this country of rational compromises.
It is a devious tactic to attempt to discredit people
What, a term change made in response to uneducated confusion?
who understand statistics well enough to ask valid and as yet unanswered questions
Could you cite some examples? I'd appreciate if you spend a couple of minutes googling for an explanation why the people who you think "understand statistics" (is this the only necessary qualification, BTW?) actually don't know what are they talking about, as well as for answers to their ill-informed questions. Some people still point at surfacestations.org or similar worn tripe as The Holy Truth That Exposes Evil Conspiracy of Climate Scientists. Don't be that gullible.
Please don't lump an obvious consequence of man's actions with one which is still in dispute. Anthropogenic global warming has not been established as a credible theory.
"Global warming" is an unfortunately popularized term, which is prone to misinterpretation so as to breed mistrust in general public. The only remaining "dispute" about anthropogenic climate change is in the heads of the deniers, nodding to each other on internet forums and in media.
And hey, the shrinkage of Aral Sea was probably still "in dispute" (especially with the region's cotton elites) by the time it was too late to avert the disaster.
While I remain skeptical (but not outright dismissive) of many of the claims of the environmental movement, particularly the global warming and carbon footprint stuff, it's stuff like this that really makes me worried. If on a small scale people can do this, I really do worry what might happen on a larger scale.
Right, think about it a bit more: some people's actions over one region can dry up a major lake because these people need the water for their well-being. Now, imagine what the entire humankind can do for our well-being, which requires releasing gases into the atmosphere in amounts that haven't been present there for millennia.
It's disturbing when this kind of crazy-ass ranting gets modded up.
So, you are in favor of wiping out an entire region where millions of people live, because ultimately, some religious nuts with origins there have killed a few thousand, and others (not necessarily from Middle East) are posting threats on the internet? Hmm, maybe those people around the world who mistrust America's intentions have a point... What if people like you elect somebody seriously wrong.
So, you didn't really use rpm, yum, or apt-rpm, you don't know if they are as good, and therefore dpkg/apt is superior. Then there will be harm, mostly psychological in nature. I'm not sure there will be any for other users, you know, people who only see pretty icons on the screen and rarely open the text terminal. And it's those people, I'm afraid, who will decide if MeeGo is a viable mobile platform, or just another geek toy.
* Debian distros degrade much more gracefully over time/use. * Upgrades and non-standard (IE 3rd party repository) packages tend to not break things as severely.
I have used both packaging systems for quite some time, and I cannot confirm these statements. Both seem quite equally capable when managed well. Which is how MeeGo repositories are supposed to be.
* The package system is somewhat more atomic, allowing for function even with broken packages.
This is interesting, because in Maemo we had a big dpkg whopper: packages left in "unconfigured" state because there is a file conflict, or a dependency conflict. Considering that most users will only use Application Manager with little capabilities of resolving such things, I think "something more atomic" would suit MeeGo better. And rpm behaves completely atomically in this regard.
* You are able to (statefully) recover from source-based installs as well as non-packaged binary installs.
Oh, so you are the kind of user who not only does such things on your mobile device, but requires the system's assistance for it. You may find yourself getting a little less consideration from MeeGo architects, indeed.
Slashdot Mirror
It's true to some extent: fossil fuels give the cheapest* energy we can get, so we can use the money for something else.
* Externalities apply. Our descendants may not welcome the hidden costs we offset to them.
I realized that the reason he was no longer considered reputable was because he had spoken out against the "consensus".
Not because he was shown to be wrong, and besides, received funding from anti-AGW interest groups?
A) and B) are evaluated by independent studies over different data. The result is diddly point squat.
C) is bollocks. If two methods independenty give strongly agreeable results, the most likely assumption is that both were done correctly. Please also clarify what the vaguely stated "comparison of methods" actually means.
D) I'd be the last one to deny that. This does not, however, prevent programs from working correctly most of the time. And see the above: their software basically has a test suite and passes it.
Pick one.
How about Redwine or Geri Halliwell? It's hard to check people who may or may not exist. But yes, there may even be a few actual researchers there. I have no time to check now.
Now, answer my question:
Show me a single government funded study that concluded the less government intervention is required? Why would AGW be any different?
Among the first few Google results on "deregulation study" comes this:
Please offer an example of a reputable scientist critical of AGW, who is not funded by fossil fuel companies.
The CRU has in their power to silence their critics by full release of the methods, data and code used to perform their analysis. Without all three, there can be *no* independent verification of their results.
I understand that outside of non-scientific "sceptical" community, nobody cares. Because there have been multiple independent studies of similarly obtained data, all of which giving agreeable results. You may take it as evidence of vast conspiracy, but most reasonable people just seem to conclude that it worked, and they didn't make anything up. And, as I said, there are data sets out there, go ahead and run the numbers.
will only result in even more scrutiny, and will result in climate change being questioned by even more people.
So why don't you cut the empty "questioning", the answers to which are never going to please you, lift your behind from the armchair and perform your own analysis of the publicly available data? These guys are at least trying.
Sure, but here we're talking about "sceptics" in quotes. Denial of facts and fabrication of doubt is not scepticism.
And it's more entertaining because the proponents of AGW have been shutting down monitoring in remote locations and encouraging more monitoring where there are large thermal accumulators in the form of pavement and buildings.
No, they haven't.
Next time before repeating a tired old bullshit, could you be bothered to run a two-minute investigation with Google (or Bing if you prefer) that will point you to a credible rebuttal from actual scientists? Thank you.
Somehow this does not happen, despite a similar situation to Arizona's: there is a huge eastern neighbor Russia, with a similar difference in quality of life and spotty law enforcement (now there spot checks for papers are the norm, usually to extract bribes).
And I live in a pretty laid-back country, too (Finland).
In Finland, nobody requires you to carry papers that prove that you are here legally. On the other hand, I always carry the national ID card with me; it tells nothing of my visa status, but this being Finland, I presume the police can check this online. I've never seen them doing spot checks at least on pedestrians, so I guess they have other means to catch overstayers. The trick is, you don't get access to so many services if you don't have the ID that it's probably like living off the grid. Such is this country of rational compromises.
It's remarkable how asking for credible sources not only gets me labelled a "zealot", but also earns a Troll moderation. Way to go, "nerds".
It is a devious tactic to attempt to discredit people
What, a term change made in response to uneducated confusion?
who understand statistics well enough to ask valid and as yet unanswered questions
Could you cite some examples? I'd appreciate if you spend a couple of minutes googling for an explanation why the people who you think "understand statistics" (is this the only necessary qualification, BTW?) actually don't know what are they talking about, as well as for answers to their ill-informed questions. Some people still point at surfacestations.org or similar worn tripe as The Holy Truth That Exposes Evil Conspiracy of Climate Scientists. Don't be that gullible.
You tell me. My wife splurged something like $100 on a jar of Dead Sea "healing" cosmetics. Now I wish that damned sea really died.
Please don't lump an obvious consequence of man's actions with one which is still in dispute. Anthropogenic global warming has not been established as a credible theory.
"Global warming" is an unfortunately popularized term, which is prone to misinterpretation so as to breed mistrust in general public. The only remaining "dispute" about anthropogenic climate change is in the heads of the deniers, nodding to each other on internet forums and in media.
And hey, the shrinkage of Aral Sea was probably still "in dispute" (especially with the region's cotton elites) by the time it was too late to avert the disaster.
In fairness, you did't even need to comment on this article. Please do us all a favor and return to your NASCAR broadcasts.
While I remain skeptical (but not outright dismissive) of many of the claims of the environmental movement, particularly the global warming and carbon footprint stuff, it's stuff like this that really makes me worried. If on a small scale people can do this, I really do worry what might happen on a larger scale.
Right, think about it a bit more: some people's actions over one region can dry up a major lake because these people need the water for their well-being. Now, imagine what the entire humankind can do for our well-being, which requires releasing gases into the atmosphere in amounts that haven't been present there for millennia.
Are you sure you know what are you talking about? US did not go to war with Iran yet.
It's disturbing when this kind of crazy-ass ranting gets modded up.
So, you are in favor of wiping out an entire region where millions of people live, because ultimately, some religious nuts with origins there have killed a few thousand, and others (not necessarily from Middle East) are posting threats on the internet? Hmm, maybe those people around the world who mistrust America's intentions have a point... What if people like you elect somebody seriously wrong.
You go to China but you can't do business unless you pay the bribes
Isn't the ethical solution to get back out of China?
And I'm speaking as an emigrant out of Russia, where I came to detest the pervasive corruption.
With all due respect, it's daemons.
So, you didn't really use rpm, yum, or apt-rpm, you don't know if they are as good, and therefore dpkg/apt is superior. Then there will be harm, mostly psychological in nature. I'm not sure there will be any for other users, you know, people who only see pretty icons on the screen and rarely open the text terminal. And it's those people, I'm afraid, who will decide if MeeGo is a viable mobile platform, or just another geek toy.
I have used both packaging systems for quite some time, and I cannot confirm these statements. Both seem quite equally capable when managed well. Which is how MeeGo repositories are supposed to be.
This is interesting, because in Maemo we had a big dpkg whopper: packages left in "unconfigured" state because there is a file conflict, or a dependency conflict. Considering that most users will only use Application Manager with little capabilities of resolving such things, I think "something more atomic" would suit MeeGo better. And rpm behaves completely atomically in this regard.
Oh, so you are the kind of user who not only does such things on your mobile device, but requires the system's assistance for it. You may find yourself getting a little less consideration from MeeGo architects, indeed.
In what way, pray tell?
Yes, and here's proof.