I've been waiting for this ever since I heard of it: All the photographic quality of a inkjet with faster speeds than laser printers and saving ink to boot. Very disappointed we won't see it at home now, but it's only a matter of time before it filters down.
It would filter down a lot sooner if printer manufacturers would adopt this fantastic new business model where you charge what products are actually worth and not adopt this "buy this cheap, pay for extras to keep us afloat" mentality. This is just another version of a company wanting a constant, consistant revenue stream verses having to actually innovate and keep product lines fresh to get new sales.
Everyone wants to be a utility, Well, the problem is - that's what the public bought, the cheap printers over the expensive ones with the low priced consumables. Of course now they cry over the price of ink - but we all know the public is stupid.
2) UK iTunes Movie Downloads
Wouldn't Apple wait for the EU regulators to force the music companies to allow one EU wide Music Store before they open a country specific Movie store? I mena, really Crave.
But Apple has already said they would sell Videos in the European stores.
It's very likely that resolution independent display technology from Leopard is required to take full advantage of the iPhone's 160 dpi display. This is the key feature that discerning technology analysts look at when speculating on which vesion of Mac OS X runs on the iPhone. Has anybody done a uname on the Apple TV yet? What kernel is that running?
Leopard Technology Series for Developers. Err, why not just use a larger font and icons? The iPhone isn't able to run anything but the apps that come with it, and they can easily be written to use an interface that is perfect for the 160 dpi display (while they are adapted to fit into 320 by 480 pixels).
IIRC everyone who paid real money for 10.0 got 10.1 at an upgrade price as a "We're sorry about that...." on account of 10.0 being BALLS in just about every possible department. The upgrade price being $0.
I disagree with both of you. His MacBook will benefit from the extended register range in AMD64 (over x86) and his software should be a bit smoother for that. Well, not quite. Because both Tiger and several apps already make use of those extra registers.
> Indeed. This is one more reason to hate iPhone. I have a Core 2 Duo MacBook.
The iPhone is not to blame. They just wanted to say "iPhone NOT delayed" at the same time as they announce that Leopard is delayed. The first thing I thought when I saw Leopard in October was does that mean iPhone in October, also? It is running OS X Leopard one would assume, not Tiger. So they are saying don't worry you'll get your iPhone. Why exactly would one think that? Which of the announced new features/improvements of Leopard would be of benefit to the iPhone? Improved 64 bit-ness? New features for Mail, iChat? New Dashboard Widgets? Spaces, Time Machine, Spotlight across the LAN, new Xcode?
I work for an R&D department in a corporation. When we see a good idea that might
cut into the profits of our existing products, do we say
"Okay, how can we suppress this?" Never. Such a suggestion would be the height of
absurdity. Yeah, because that would be a job for marketing, not R&D.
What do you know So are temperatures. *ducks from thrown chair*
You didn't read the article I take it? The article points out - "They say that over the last century the number of sunspots rose at the same time that the Earth's climate became steadily warmer. This trend is being amplified by gases from fossil fuel burning, they argue." You don't get first post by reading all of the submission, let alone the article;-)
Nah, pour a few beers into a Scandi/Nordic male and those Viking genes start activating again - they get very loud and very drunk. Errm, following that methology, I get the result that most Vikings ended up in England.
Most people have no clue about Galileo and what happened. In fact, just the other day someone told me in defense of global warming and criticism of religion "That's why they had Galileo killed!"
Er...they didn't.
In fact, the issue with Galileo was one of politics, scientific peer review, and merely being an egotistical jerk. The Catholic Church has a doctrine that if a natural event can be proved to be true that their interpretation is what is flawed as God made the natural world. So if Galileo had proved his viewpoint then the doctrine of the church would have been altered.
The problem is that Galileo did not have proof and had numerous flaws, but instead of essentially releasing his views as a "theory for peer review" made affirmed statements of fact. He basically by-passed the peer review of the day.
On top of that, other scientists who's work could have assisted in proving and giving serious credit to Galileo's work had been dismissed by Galileo as foolishly wrong. (I believe this may have involved Keppler and another. One of which was that the orbits were elipitical to which Galileo dismissed and rudely did so.) So essentially, Galileo called other peer articles of the day which could have supported his own as false.
Then after all this, he wrote a discourse that essentially publicly insulted the pope. Who had been rather favorable of Galileo.
What Galileo did was Akin to publishing an article stating a new discovery or thought as fact, not having the article peer reviewed and then publicly saying that his fellow peers who were doing similar work were ignorant and off-based and their articles were completely wrong. Than to top it off, doing an interview in a newspaper and stating that the editors of the scientific journal were mere simpletons. And many aspects of Galileo's work were indeed wrong. Nice try - but no cigar. Gilileo (and others) made observations that were simply not explainable by the geocentric world model. So he spoke out in favour of Copernicus' heliocentric model (which he did not dare to publish until after his death, but before Gillileo was born) , which many considered heresy. Galileo was then ordered to only speak of heliocentrism as a hypothesis unless he could give conclusive proof - the fact that geocentrism simply didn't fit a number of observations was conveniently ignored. Later he was given the chance to write book which presented a "balanced view of both theories" - now where did we hear that lately? Not being able to ignore the obvious flaws in the church sanctioned theory was what got him in trouble then.
Ok, this show has been promoted like wildfire on the net by conservatives and global warming deniers. Like with Michael Crichton, no matter how many times it is debunked, I see we will see this show quoted as truth for years to come and links to it get modded up....
To most people, it's just as factual as "An Inconvenient Truth." Remember 49% of the population wanted Gore the first time around, and 49% wanted Bush. So just taking those percentages into account, you'll have 49% of voters that think "An Inconvenient Truth" while those same votes think the others show is a pack of PR lies. The same thing applies in the other direction though, you have the other 49% of voters that think "An Inconvenient Truth"i s a pack of PR lies and the other show is a factual rebuttal of the PR piece. You want to turn the outcome of the 2004 Presidential Elections (where Bush was still sailing on 9/11) into a statistic of who believes a movie made years later?
That's an interesting article, it starts off by saying that the program was using some kind of dodgy graph to make it look as though there was a cooling period between 1940 and 1970. The article says this graph was misleading and wrong and that no such cooling period exists.
It then says that the scientifically accepted cooling period noted between 1940 and 1970 has now been successfully explained as being caused by air pollution.
So it sounds to me as though everyone agrees the point of the graph is accurate, there was a period of global cooling between 1940 & 1970 its just that the program makers and the Independant disagree as to what exactly caused it. Apart from the fact that the cooling wasn't global, but restricted to the heavily industrialised areas of the northern hemisphere.
Not to mention that your claim is quite a bit misleading.
It's interesting how the word "deniers" is used almost like the Catholic Church used "heretics" in the middle ages. Here's a clue: unlike the absolutism so rampant in politics these days (pro life! pro choice! bah!) it is possible to be concerned about climate change without buying into the "OMG the North Atlantic Drift is shifting; Europe will fr33ze" bullshit peddled by scaremongerers in the media.
This article by the Tyndall Centre's Mike Hulme might give you some food for thought. Check out his credentials, he's one of the stalwarts among climate change scientists. He might help you realize that idiots exist on all sides, and the environmentalist movement is not without its fair share. But then, I'm not especially hopeful since you seem to have already made up your mind about "deniers".
No, "deniers" is used in exactly the way it's supposed to, "people who deny". The people who say "There is no Global Warming, and the Kyoto Protocol is just a ruse to destroy America". There actually are such absolutist nutcase on your side. Do you deny there are?
Simarly climate models may be "incorrect" but they have demonstrated they can predict the climate.
How so? The models presented by some AGW groups wildly overstate both the rise in sea level and the rise in temperature due to increased CO2. For example, the IPCC model for temperature predicted that from 1979 to 1998, temps would go up by 0.8 degree C; in fact, they FELL by 0.2 degrees. Here's a link:
Please note that this link is to a group that SUPPORTS the AGW hypothesis, even though they present evidence showing that the models fail to predict temperature DIRECTION, let alone the magnitude of change. Sorry, if your model predicts a rise of 8, when the actual experience is a fall of 2, I'd say your model is pretty much worthless. But then, I'm only an engineer; we're more concerned with what we see than what we want to prove.
One tiny problem: the data they quote only comes from 63 balloon stations. Other measurements using many more stations as well as satellite data show something different.
Re:Not sure why it's so hard to believe.
on
100 Million iPods
·
· Score: 1
I find it somewhat hard to believe but this story over at PC world, indicates that the iPod has sold over 100 million units. It also asks how many are broken and replaced which makes me believe the number may be more accurate.
The press release doesn't say that there are 100 million units presently in use by 100 million people around the world today, now, right here. It says that they've moved 100 million ipods. Some percentage of that 100 million has surely been broken, been stolen, been lost, been destroyed, etc. Some percentage is probably sitting on a desktop somewhere and almost never gets used. But the total number sold apparently is over 100 million. Ermm, I'm pretty certain that most iPods that have been stolen or lost are still in use anyway.
I should probably add that this does not mean that polluters are let off the hook. On health grounds alone, we already regulate most pollutants. As for CO2 emissions (which is what most global warming campaigners campaign for), I would suggest that the "the end is nigh" scenarios many campaigners paint is both scientifically inaccurate as well as damaging to their cause. Rather, they should encourage (through various methods like research grants and tax breaks) use of a basket of energy sources, including solar, wind and nuclear. Nuclear is crucial -- solar and wind are nice but large markets need reliable electricity sources. So far, most of "the end is nigh" scenarios come from the deniers in form of "it will crash world economy if we do something".
It is *all* about taxes, not to mention the hubris that we are the primary driver of climate on the planet. The scam is a means to get centralised control over resources (money = power) by the UN and various governments.
Actually it's all about money in general. Global Warming has become huge business, from the research grants to the sale of phony carbon credits. Ahh, yes, Hubris. "Hubris against the gods"
Thanks for pointing out that many of the GW deniers are religious nutcases seeking to defend god against the evil atheists, because god controlls all of nature and pretending that man can fuck with it would mean god isn't all powerfull.
It doesnt take a genius to work out that if you TURN UP the gas valve on a heater, IT GETS HOTTER.
Likewise the sun doesnt put out constant energy, it can vary. And we cannot do anything about it, which is why secretly, shhhh
dont tell anyone, coz once every idiot learns that "hey its the sun, we can do zero about it" everyone will do ZERO too and not care at all.
Pretending that we can do something, even if it artificially cools the planet to offset the suns increase can be good, even if most people dont
know how it worked, and the saviours can say, "LOOK WE SAVED EARTH", now pay us lots of taxes forever!!!! Sure. Simple people always have a simple explanation. And if it doesn't explain everything, they just complain that those pointing out that fact just are mean.
I belive the GP was looking for a scientific rebuttal, a poltical rant is not a substitute for science. Sticking your fingers in your ears whilst cutting and pasting anti-science drivel will only result in your fingertips meeting in the middle.
Why would I place a scientific rebuttal to a political document? I mean, the friggin title of the damn thing is "Summary for Policy Makers". It is "Cliff note for the Corrupt". OK, here is a scientific rebuttal (from a scientist, not me)
There has been a net warming of the earth over the last century and a half, and our greenhouse gas emissions are contributing at some level. Both of these statements are almost certainly true.
the variance between temp and CO2 are less than the margin of certainty in the data.
The question isn't whether or not a correlation exists. We know a correlation exists. But if event A happens after event B, it's impossible for event A to cause event B. The documentary stated that CO2 levels rise after the rise in temperature (that is, the graph of CO2 looked like the graph of temperature shifted a few hundred years right), not before, thus eliminating the CO2 as the cause of the temperature rise (perhaps it's an effect instead?). Strawman alert! Nobody claims that CO2 is the only reason for all climate changes. You only ever hear that from the GW deniers.
You forgetting some relative things here. First solar flux increases the direct amount of watervapor in the air. As does any increase in warming due to other sources.
Other fun facts:
water is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 (by A LOT)
the ocean releases a lot of dissolved CO2 when it gets warmed up! so as solar flux increases, the atmospheric CO2 goes up a bit. atmospheric CO2 is not doing the warming.
Another fun fact: 10 years ago you guys told us that warmer water would dissolve more CO2. Yet another fun fact: you guys keep lying about the amount of CO2 volcanos produce.
Slashdot Mirror
Linux does it, and the guy who found the bug is of course the first to do so.
It would filter down a lot sooner if printer manufacturers would adopt this fantastic new business model where you charge what products are actually worth and not adopt this "buy this cheap, pay for extras to keep us afloat" mentality. This is just another version of a company wanting a constant, consistant revenue stream verses having to actually innovate and keep product lines fresh to get new sales.
Everyone wants to be a utility,
Well, the problem is - that's what the public bought, the cheap printers over the expensive ones with the low priced consumables. Of course now they cry over the price of ink - but we all know the public is stupid.
Wouldn't Apple wait for the EU regulators to force the music companies to allow one EU wide Music Store before they open a country specific Movie store? I mena, really Crave.
But Apple has already said they would sell Videos in the European stores.
Leopard Technology Series for Developers
The iPhone is not to blame. They just wanted to say "iPhone NOT delayed" at the same time as they announce that Leopard is delayed. The first thing I thought when I saw Leopard in October was does that mean iPhone in October, also? It is running OS X Leopard one would assume, not Tiger. So they are saying don't worry you'll get your iPhone. Why exactly would one think that? Which of the announced new features/improvements of Leopard would be of benefit to the iPhone? Improved 64 bit-ness? New features for Mail, iChat? New Dashboard Widgets? Spaces, Time Machine, Spotlight across the LAN, new Xcode?
You didn't read the article I take it? The article points out - "They say that over the last century the number of sunspots rose at the same time that the Earth's climate became steadily warmer. This trend is being amplified by gases from fossil fuel burning, they argue." You don't get first post by reading all of the submission, let alone the article
Er...they didn't.
In fact, the issue with Galileo was one of politics, scientific peer review, and merely being an egotistical jerk. The Catholic Church has a doctrine that if a natural event can be proved to be true that their interpretation is what is flawed as God made the natural world. So if Galileo had proved his viewpoint then the doctrine of the church would have been altered.
The problem is that Galileo did not have proof and had numerous flaws, but instead of essentially releasing his views as a "theory for peer review" made affirmed statements of fact. He basically by-passed the peer review of the day.
On top of that, other scientists who's work could have assisted in proving and giving serious credit to Galileo's work had been dismissed by Galileo as foolishly wrong. (I believe this may have involved Keppler and another. One of which was that the orbits were elipitical to which Galileo dismissed and rudely did so.) So essentially, Galileo called other peer articles of the day which could have supported his own as false.
Then after all this, he wrote a discourse that essentially publicly insulted the pope. Who had been rather favorable of Galileo.
What Galileo did was Akin to publishing an article stating a new discovery or thought as fact, not having the article peer reviewed and then publicly saying that his fellow peers who were doing similar work were ignorant and off-based and their articles were completely wrong. Than to top it off, doing an interview in a newspaper and stating that the editors of the scientific journal were mere simpletons. And many aspects of Galileo's work were indeed wrong. Nice try - but no cigar. Gilileo (and others) made observations that were simply not explainable by the geocentric world model. So he spoke out in favour of Copernicus' heliocentric model (which he did not dare to publish until after his death, but before Gillileo was born) , which many considered heresy. Galileo was then ordered to only speak of heliocentrism as a hypothesis unless he could give conclusive proof - the fact that geocentrism simply didn't fit a number of observations was conveniently ignored. Later he was given the chance to write book which presented a "balanced view of both theories" - now where did we hear that lately? Not being able to ignore the obvious flaws in the church sanctioned theory was what got him in trouble then.
To most people, it's just as factual as "An Inconvenient Truth." Remember 49% of the population wanted Gore the first time around, and 49% wanted Bush. So just taking those percentages into account, you'll have 49% of voters that think "An Inconvenient Truth" while those same votes think the others show is a pack of PR lies. The same thing applies in the other direction though, you have the other 49% of voters that think "An Inconvenient Truth"i s a pack of PR lies and the other show is a factual rebuttal of the PR piece.
You want to turn the outcome of the 2004 Presidential Elections (where Bush was still sailing on 9/11) into a statistic of who believes a movie made years later?
It then says that the scientifically accepted cooling period noted between 1940 and 1970 has now been successfully explained as being caused by air pollution.
So it sounds to me as though everyone agrees the point of the graph is accurate, there was a period of global cooling between 1940 & 1970 its just that the program makers and the Independant disagree as to what exactly caused it.
Apart from the fact that the cooling wasn't global, but restricted to the heavily industrialised areas of the northern hemisphere.
Not to mention that your claim is quite a bit misleading.
This article by the Tyndall Centre's Mike Hulme might give you some food for thought. Check out his credentials, he's one of the stalwarts among climate change scientists. He might help you realize that idiots exist on all sides, and the environmentalist movement is not without its fair share. But then, I'm not especially hopeful since you seem to have already made up your mind about "deniers".
No, "deniers" is used in exactly the way it's supposed to, "people who deny". The people who say "There is no Global Warming, and the Kyoto Protocol is just a ruse to destroy America". There actually are such absolutist nutcase on your side. Do you deny there are?
How so? The models presented by some AGW groups wildly overstate both the rise in sea level and the rise in temperature due to increased CO2. For example, the IPCC model for temperature predicted that from 1979 to 1998, temps would go up by 0.8 degree C; in fact, they FELL by 0.2 degrees. Here's a link:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm#Message53
Please note that this link is to a group that SUPPORTS the AGW hypothesis, even though they present evidence showing that the models fail to predict temperature DIRECTION, let alone the magnitude of change. Sorry, if your model predicts a rise of 8, when the actual experience is a fall of 2, I'd say your model is pretty much worthless. But then, I'm only an engineer; we're more concerned with what we see than what we want to prove.
One tiny problem: the data they quote only comes from 63 balloon stations. Other measurements using many more stations as well as satellite data show something different.Yes, but how many Libraries of Congress is that? I don't know, how much does a Library of Congress cost?
So far, most of "the end is nigh" scenarios come from the deniers in form of "it will crash world economy if we do something".
Actually it's all about money in general. Global Warming has become huge business, from the research grants to the sale of phony carbon credits. Ahh, yes, Hubris. "Hubris against the gods"
Thanks for pointing out that many of the GW deniers are religious nutcases seeking to defend god against the evil atheists, because god controlls all of nature and pretending that man can fuck with it would mean god isn't all powerfull.
It doesnt take a genius to work out that if you TURN UP the gas valve on a heater, IT GETS HOTTER.
Likewise the sun doesnt put out constant energy, it can vary. And we cannot do anything about it, which is why secretly, shhhh
dont tell anyone, coz once every idiot learns that "hey its the sun, we can do zero about it" everyone will do ZERO too and not care at all.
Pretending that we can do something, even if it artificially cools the planet to offset the suns increase can be good, even if most people dont
know how it worked, and the saviours can say, "LOOK WE SAVED EARTH", now pay us lots of taxes forever!!!! Sure. Simple people always have a simple explanation. And if it doesn't explain everything, they just complain that those pointing out that fact just are mean.
Why would I place a scientific rebuttal to a political document? I mean, the friggin title of the damn thing is "Summary for Policy Makers". It is "Cliff note for the Corrupt". OK, here is a scientific rebuttal (from a scientist, not me)
Thanks for debunking the Global Warming myth.
The question isn't whether or not a correlation exists. We know a correlation exists. But if event A happens after event B, it's impossible for event A to cause event B. The documentary stated that CO2 levels rise after the rise in temperature (that is, the graph of CO2 looked like the graph of temperature shifted a few hundred years right), not before, thus eliminating the CO2 as the cause of the temperature rise (perhaps it's an effect instead?).
Strawman alert! Nobody claims that CO2 is the only reason for all climate changes. You only ever hear that from the GW deniers.
water is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 (by A LOT)
the ocean releases a lot of dissolved CO2 when it gets warmed up! so as solar flux increases, the atmospheric CO2 goes up a bit. atmospheric CO2 is not doing the warming.
Another fun fact: 10 years ago you guys told us that warmer water would dissolve more CO2. Yet another fun fact: you guys keep lying about the amount of CO2 volcanos produce.