This article is not challenging peer-reviewed articles. Rather, it is challenging Gore's (and the political left's in general) interpretations.
Ohh? So why is the first part of the article about pointing out that only a very small fraction of [Gore's "majority of scientists"] actually work in the climate field?
Silly me, it's to discredit peer-reviewed articles based on who wrote them, not to challenge them on the content.
Funny is, the first guy he quotes as a "one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts" is actually "a palaeontologist, stratigrapher and marine geologist." So his qualifacations as a climateologist (as opposed to the very large fraction" of "Gore's scientists") is basically that he agrees with him.
This is why when I see an article on any controversial subject that uses the term "a lot of scientists" I immediately ask "define 'a lot'".
But the article does that: Many scientists: "... one of hundreds"; few scientists: "a very small fraction [of] what Gore [calls a] "majority of scientists"".
Now if that doesn't convince you...
The article must have missed the part that hundreds of people write to the necessary folks, and get ignored because hundreds of people want to meet the PM over their little issue.
The Cell processor may be faster but how easy is it to implement an optimizing development system that eliminates the need to hand-optimized the code? [...] I suspect that the Cell's design is not as elegant (from a programmer's POV) as it could have been, only because it was not designed with an elegant software model in mind.
Hunh? From a (assembler) programmer's POV we have something close to AltiVec/VMX vs. x86 and EPIC - and you ask which is easier?
That is already the translated version. Though I don't know why he didn't translate the "Ja! Ja! Ja! Ja!" line.
And yes, I did get the Simpsons reference.
The problem is that you (and most journalists) don't understand what the law is about. It requires the use of DRM for things like web radios. It makes circumventing DRM a criminal offense.
So driving 1 mph isn't speeding, 2 mph neither, and to not break your little "no arbritary limits" rule, driving 100 mph through a domestic area shouldn't be speeding either.
Many, sadly here on Slashdot, too, subscribe to the thought that "people *deserve*" this-or-that. That it's their "right" for such-and-such. Like the "right" to get entertainment for free.
If you had called Apple two weeks ago because you'd waited a month for you iBook to arrive, and asked if the iBook had been discontinued, they wouldn't have mentioned anything about the fact whether it's still in production or not.
Slashdot Mirror
Ohh? So why is the first part of the article about pointing out that only a very small fraction of [Gore's "majority of scientists"] actually work in the climate field?
Silly me, it's to discredit peer-reviewed articles based on who wrote them, not to challenge them on the content.
Funny is, the first guy he quotes as a "one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts" is actually "a palaeontologist, stratigrapher and marine geologist." So his qualifacations as a climateologist (as opposed to the very large fraction" of "Gore's scientists") is basically that he agrees with him.
But the article does that: Many scientists: "... one of hundreds"; few scientists: "a very small fraction [of] what Gore [calls a] "majority of scientists"".
Now if that doesn't convince you...
And almost every debunking has been shown to be junk science.
with these "free" websites and the "Ultimate Fitness Program" banners? Whenever I see that, I know which direction the flag waves.
Xenophon - sounds strange to me. No, really.
The article must have missed the part that hundreds of people write to the necessary folks, and get ignored because hundreds of people want to meet the PM over their little issue.
for Microbreweries.
So what exactly is keeping you from creating a new playlist with the same songs in the same order? You blind hatred for Apple?
Do we want it blow up or not?
The cops won the coin toss over who gets to go to the Apple store.
The big story is that it was plain to see there were people stuck inside.
Hunh? From a (assembler) programmer's POV we have something close to AltiVec/VMX vs. x86 and EPIC - and you ask which is easier?
That is already the translated version. Though I don't know why he didn't translate the "Ja! Ja! Ja! Ja!" line. And yes, I did get the Simpsons reference.
The problem is that you (and most journalists) don't understand what the law is about. It requires the use of DRM for things like web radios. It makes circumventing DRM a criminal offense.
The exact same law you love so much.
No, I compared his stupid analogy to an stupid analogy you would understand.
So driving 1 mph isn't speeding, 2 mph neither, and to not break your little "no arbritary limits" rule, driving 100 mph through a domestic area shouldn't be speeding either.
Many, sadly here on Slashdot, too, subscribe to the thought that "people *deserve*" this-or-that. That it's their "right" for such-and-such. Like the "right" to get entertainment for free.
Where did you get that idea? Care to back it up?
If you had called Apple two weeks ago because you'd waited a month for you iBook to arrive, and asked if the iBook had been discontinued, they wouldn't have mentioned anything about the fact whether it's still in production or not.
No, that's the best you deserve, whiney Wintroll.
You are an asshole - apart from the bits surrounding it.
Eat your own medicine. The kernel of Darwin/OS X is still open source, only the x86 parts aren't.
Yeah-hee, I'm going on one of those CIA flights!
Well, I'm from/in Germany.