There are some that think that the temperature projections are being overstated. Steven Milloy Did the math with the experts' formulas and came up with vastly smaller temperature increases. It's an interesting read with numbers to back it up. Yeah, those damn climatologists don't just ignore other known feedbacks. Gee, life could be so easy if we just ignored all those pesky details.
This is not News and the iPods aren't nearly as popular as ESPN makes it seem. I know for a fact that only the small amount of teams who have digital video systems (Red Sox) have the means to convert and load all the Video. These Digital Video systems are not the standard accross the league and most players get video of their at bats/ pitching sequences on DVD for road trips. However, the popularity of iPods as music/video players among MLB teams can not be argued. Oooh, poor Baseballers - can't afford a Mac? That's all you need to get your digital videos on an iPod.
IOW, they didn't "deliberately brake standards like SCSI", but instead used the SCSI standard vendor ID in a way you didn't like.
So, you're saying Apple deliberately refused to have their computers work with standards SCSI drives so that they could sell their own drives instead. Thanks for confirming that. No, what I'm saying is that standard SCSI drives worked great with Macs once you formatted them - thanks for confirming your stupidity.
Here are some facts about global warming. Some of which you hear and don't hear from the main stream media: [...]
One last thing. Lets say we all buy into the fact that we're causing the climate change through CO2. Regardless of what actions we (America) take, China will still produce more CO2 than anyone because they want to get rich. There's no stopping it folks. You see, the true reason why you "don't hear these facts from the main stream media" because they aren't. Let's take your last truth: China still produces less than 60% of the CO2 the USA does - and they've got over 4 times the population. So why don't you shove your "facts" where the major greenhouse gas is methane.
Well, first off disclosure of trade secrets isn't a crime. It's a civil tort, specifically breach of a non-disclosure agreement. Of course the Web sites in question hadn't signed any NDA with Apple, so they couldn't have breached the (non-existent) agreement. Under the law the burden of keeping a trade secret secret rests on the company that owns it, not the general public.
Under the terms of the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act:
"Misappropriation" means:
(1) Acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows
or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper
means; or
(2) Disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express
or implied consent by a person who:
(A) Used improper means to acquire knowledge of the trade secret;
or
(B) At the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know
that his or her knowledge of the trade secret was:
(i) Derived from or through a person who had utilized improper
means to acquire it;
(ii) Acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to
maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or
(iii) Derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the
person seeking relief to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or
(C) Before a material change of his or her position, knew or had
reason to know that it was a trade secret and that knowledge of it
had been acquired by accident or mistake.
But, as a person, Bill Gates has done a LOT more "good guy" stuff than just about anyone else in his position ever has. How many billionaire CEO's have ever given as much to legitimate charities as Bill Gates? How many others have decided to give their entire $multi-billion fortune away when they die to a charitable foundation? Guys like Gates and Warren Buffet deserve at least a little "good guy" cred for that. In German we have a saying: "Do good and talk about it". Al Capone also knew about it, he financed a soup kitchen. I'm not going into all the odd dealings of the BMGF, but there seem to be far more than for other charitable organisations. Like giving away MS products, or investing in companies that are the cause of the problems of the people they are charitable to.
Does it seem like every day, Apple is seeming less like the good guy?
Um, who ever said they ever were a good guy in this matter? They never licensed their technology to outside companies, it took people kicking and screaming for them to even allow third party hardware before the 1990's. Bullshit. They licensed their technologies at their conditions - it's non of your business if few were willing to meet those conditions (like Apple also make money on the deal). Care to back up your other claims?
In the early days, Apple used to put special identifiers in their own SCSI disk drives that they'd query, and their disk formatting software would only work with their own drives. I think people pretty quickly found ways to work around it, but it's the thought that counts in this context. IOW, they didn't "deliberately brake standards like SCSI", but instead used the SCSI standard vendor ID in a way you didn't like.
Unlike others, they did not ship SCSI cards where only one channel worked together with scanners.
Maybe they'll think twice before trampling the rights of others next time.
Or, to put it another way, this sets an important precedent.
One of the ongoing problems the legal system has is that, once a computer is involved, all precedent goes out the window, and all legal precedent is null and void and needs to be re-established. A lot of legal procedings can be explained once you understand this.
This case illustrates this rule by showing that a "blogger" isn't considered a "journalist", presumably because they use a computer and the Net to publish rather than a printing press. The judge's decision sets the important precedent that a journalist who publishes online is indeed a "journalist", and the involvement of computers and the Net doesn't negate that. Actually, that's what the original (overturned) judge said - that all journalists are subject to the law, and that it doesn't matter whether Apple mentioned "Bloggers" in their claim. See http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=183776&c id=15184019
Or do you actually believe the real journalists would have given a damn if they hadn't come for them too?
Apple just settled with Creative for $100 million and it wasn't big news. It sure was to Creative - they had over ten times the income compared to last quarter.
If you read the original article (or just about any other article about this) instead of just the summary of an rehash, you'ld know that:
The EFF asked the court for a multiplier (a.k.a, "loadstar") of the actual legal fees to compensate for the double contingent risk presented, i.e., both the risk of not prevailing in the defense of the subpoenas and the risk of succeeding, but without the circumstances necessary to obtain legal fees. At the low-end of traditional multipliers, which can range from 2-4 under California law, the EFF also said that California laws provides for a multiplier based on the novelty and complexity of the legal issues involved.
"We litigated this case in the public interest and successfully obtained substantial public benefits by vindicating constitutional rights protecting all journalists, and the public that benefits from the work of journalists, and vindicating federal statutory rights that protect all the millions of users of email communications," Opsahl wrote.
The 604 beat the Pentium 2 to hell and back even in SPEC, and yet lamers like you still didn't buy Macs. It must be great to be a lying hypocrite, tell us about it.
BTW, the latest PC are sold with DRM chips, while the latest Macs aren't - suck up to that.
I was thinking exactly that, when I first heard of these ads...
I think the Apple marketing team has missed one essential point:
Both of the main characters of Peep Show are wankers!
That's one of the things that dawns on you as you watch the show is that the two characters are equally worthless human beings. You start off siding with Jeremy because he's cooler, but then realise he's a wanker, so then Mark appears slightly better because he's on the surface a bit more kind... but then he turns out to be a prick as well.
Which I guess is spot on. Computers are a pain no matter which one you use!
Daniel Actually Aple has got it right - PCs are for humorless twits who want to see a deeper meaning in the Apple adds when they are just light-hearted commedy not related to a specific commedy show.
So your scientific answer is that you don't need to do anything because "I didn't do it, nobody saw me do it, can't prove anything".
That's not what the parent said at all, so you've just made a straw man which undermines your response. In fact, the poster believed herself that our CO2 was causing global warming, and should be reduced.
The only point she was making was that the scientific models that are the basis of the scientific method were not valid models, and before you can use a model to predict the future then it has to able to predict the past. So, saying that we want CO2 reduced is fine, but we shouldn't say that our view is based on Science with a capital 'S' (science done properly), when we know full well that our models are not working predictively even for stuff that we *do* know, ie. the past.
Ie. scientific honesty, that's all, not pretending that our models are a solid Theory of Climate. We should still stop chucking out CO2, but not lie about why. Sorry, but science is not about absolute truths and perfect proofs. The climate models are too damn close to rality to justify a "it could be something else"-spiel - so don't hold your breath to wait for under-sea volcanos to absolve you.
Funny how the global warming kooks can't tell the difference between someone that is denying something, and someone that simply has not been convinced one way or the other. Your comment makes you sound like the religious kooks that say "Prove god doesn't exists!" If you want someone to believe an incredible story, you need incredible evidence to back it up. Funny how the Global Warming deniers just like the Creationists claim that Science is a Religion.
Put those 4 things together and the "science" of climate change has a problem. The problem is simple: scientifically, we cannot use the scientific method to predict change because our best models are not yet scientifically predictive. That's an absolute problem, and it can't be fudged by wishful thinking. So your scientific answer is that you don't need to do anything because "I didn't do it, nobody saw me do it, can't prove anything".
A large part of the problem is that even if you wanted to, you couldn't get good facts on the subject. It seems that every time the subject comes up, the global warming skeptics will throw out a hypothesis (whether good or bad is irrelevant), and the global warming crowd will respond with arrogance, anger, and often name calling. During every debate, someone in the global warming crowd pops up with the obviously false statement that "There is no debate on global warming. It's a fact."
So, if you are not an expert on a subject, and you are faced with two disagreeing parties, who do you believe... The person who is calmly discussing the subject, or the guy that is trying to brow beat you into agreeing with them. If the global warming supporters want to convince reasonable people who have not done the research themselves, they need to weed out the kooks and bullies from their ranks. Funny how the Global Warming deniers don't need to weed out the idiots and liars who keep repeating the same bullshit over and over from their ranks. Probably because there would be nobody left.
Norway did not "Outlaw iTunes". They outlawed iTunes Music Store. Actually, no they didn't. The article is plain wrong. Must be because it is quoting an MSN.com article.
Slashdot Mirror
Errm, hello? 1050? Minimum in sun-spots, near maximum in temperature? In YOUR chart?
Based on that, take another look at the SN curves and then at this one where the curves are overlaid on the Wikipedia graphic.
Yup, it's the Sun causing the warming!
So why was the GW deniers favourite Medieval Warming Period during a minimum of sun-spot activity? Ooopsy.What, no "Beowulf cluster" jokes? Too suDell?
So, you're saying Apple deliberately refused to have their computers work with standards SCSI drives so that they could sell their own drives instead. Thanks for confirming that. No, what I'm saying is that standard SCSI drives worked great with Macs once you formatted them - thanks for confirming your stupidity.
[...] One last thing. Lets say we all buy into the fact that we're causing the climate change through CO2. Regardless of what actions we (America) take, China will still produce more CO2 than anyone because they want to get rich. There's no stopping it folks. You see, the true reason why you "don't hear these facts from the main stream media" because they aren't. Let's take your last truth: China still produces less than 60% of the CO2 the USA does - and they've got over 4 times the population. So why don't you shove your "facts" where the major greenhouse gas is methane.
Well, first off disclosure of trade secrets isn't a crime. It's a civil tort, specifically breach of a non-disclosure agreement. Of course the Web sites in question hadn't signed any NDA with Apple, so they couldn't have breached the (non-existent) agreement. Under the law the burden of keeping a trade secret secret rests on the company that owns it, not the general public.
Under the terms of the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act:Um, who ever said they ever were a good guy in this matter? They never licensed their technology to outside companies, it took people kicking and screaming for them to even allow third party hardware before the 1990's. Bullshit. They licensed their technologies at their conditions - it's non of your business if few were willing to meet those conditions (like Apple also make money on the deal). Care to back up your other claims?
Unlike others, they did not ship SCSI cards where only one channel worked together with scanners.
Or, to put it another way, this sets an important precedent.
One of the ongoing problems the legal system has is that, once a computer is involved, all precedent goes out the window, and all legal precedent is null and void and needs to be re-established. A lot of legal procedings can be explained once you understand this.
This case illustrates this rule by showing that a "blogger" isn't considered a "journalist", presumably because they use a computer and the Net to publish rather than a printing press. The judge's decision sets the important precedent that a journalist who publishes online is indeed a "journalist", and the involvement of computers and the Net doesn't negate that. Actually, that's what the original (overturned) judge said - that all journalists are subject to the law, and that it doesn't matter whether Apple mentioned "Bloggers" in their claim. See http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=183776&
Or do you actually believe the real journalists would have given a damn if they hadn't come for them too?
dLusions - of granDell
BTW, the latest PC are sold with DRM chips, while the latest Macs aren't - suck up to that.
Sorry to point out that you were WRONG. Not that anybody wanted to know whether you wanted to know that people know.
At least one ad should have had techno/trance playing in the background....
Well, if you say that making a completly new add ("Tentacle") is just "minor dialogue changes"
And is it me or does the mac not really look that hip compared to the american ads?
Tom The US adds were talking about how the people in Britain were working longer hours than in any other country in Europe?
Or did they further divide "Hijincks" into "Capers, monkey-business and just larking about"?
I think the Apple marketing team has missed one essential point:
Both of the main characters of Peep Show are wankers!
That's one of the things that dawns on you as you watch the show is that the two characters are equally worthless human beings. You start off siding with Jeremy because he's cooler, but then realise he's a wanker, so then Mark appears slightly better because he's on the surface a bit more kind... but then he turns out to be a prick as well.
Which I guess is spot on. Computers are a pain no matter which one you use!
Daniel Actually Aple has got it right - PCs are for humorless twits who want to see a deeper meaning in the Apple adds when they are just light-hearted commedy not related to a specific commedy show.
That's not what the parent said at all, so you've just made a straw man which undermines your response. In fact, the poster believed herself that our CO2 was causing global warming, and should be reduced.
The only point she was making was that the scientific models that are the basis of the scientific method were not valid models, and before you can use a model to predict the future then it has to able to predict the past. So, saying that we want CO2 reduced is fine, but we shouldn't say that our view is based on Science with a capital 'S' (science done properly), when we know full well that our models are not working predictively even for stuff that we *do* know, ie. the past.
Ie. scientific honesty, that's all, not pretending that our models are a solid Theory of Climate. We should still stop chucking out CO2, but not lie about why. Sorry, but science is not about absolute truths and perfect proofs. The climate models are too damn close to rality to justify a "it could be something else"-spiel - so don't hold your breath to wait for under-sea volcanos to absolve you.
So, if you are not an expert on a subject, and you are faced with two disagreeing parties, who do you believe... The person who is calmly discussing the subject, or the guy that is trying to brow beat you into agreeing with them. If the global warming supporters want to convince reasonable people who have not done the research themselves, they need to weed out the kooks and bullies from their ranks. Funny how the Global Warming deniers don't need to weed out the idiots and liars who keep repeating the same bullshit over and over from their ranks. Probably because there would be nobody left.
http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=20928&hed =Norway%3A+iTunes+is+a+Lawbreaker§or=Regions&s ubsector=Europe