Scientists sure like to doctor their research to get more funding, they are like exxon.
So? How does that prove that the vast majority of scientists, who are pretty certain that AGW is happening, are in a huge conspiracy and lying? If I would lead a vast conspiracy of scientists to get more funding, I would make sure that they are split about 50-50, to keep the money rolling in an ongoing debate. I certainly wouldn't make it all dependent on a small group of outsiders fighting the results - come to think of it, I would sell the souls of my merry bunch of scientists to an invested party having lost most ground in an scientific debate, to become that group of outsiders, because that's where the real money is. Purely hypothetical speaking of course.
I dislike Monsanto as much as the average Slashdotter, but I dislike revisionism too. The farmer tested patches of his crop with Roundup and harvested and replanted those plants which were resistant. He had to have known what the farmers around him were testing, so he was willfully stealing, according to the court.
Gee, that conclusion reeks of Creationism - only Monsanto could have created Roundup resistance, Natural Selection need not apply.
Not to mention the fact that the goal of creating the crop in the first place was of course to boost sales of Roundup, which obviously worked with the farmer in question.
There is no such thing as AGWs. "Global Warming" has now become "Climate Change".
Yup. Of course not the way you insinuate it happened: Frank Luntz, a political consultant (and now FOX News commentator), whose specialty is “testing language and finding words that will help his clients sell their product or turn public opinion on an issue or a candidate.”, did his job, and thus spoke in 2002
“'Climate change' is less frightening than 'global warming.'... While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge”
Now compare speeches by president Bush from 2001 and 2003, when talking of the issues of Global Warming. Not only that, the administration made it a policy for all government employed scientists to use the new-speak word.
I'm going to stick my neck out and say that I pirate games I don't want to pay for because generally too expensive to purchase. If I could pay $10 for each of a dozen games that I've pirated in the past year instead of $120 for two, I probably would.
Of course the iPhone game with the high pirate rate talked about in TOFA was $3.99 at first, later $1.99 - and the pirates tried and tried but never bought.
due to the problem, server operators delay support for IPv6 to avoid losing customers. it certainly "blocks ipv6 adoption."
So the server operators delay support for IPv6 because ISPs don't support IPv6, and ISPs delay support for IPv6 because server operators don't support IPv6 - and clearly Apple blocks Pv6 because they support IPv6 instead of just using IPv4 like everyone else does to avoid this problem. And by problem we don't mean lacking support for IPv6, but a delay that for whatever reason wouldn't make customers force ISPs and server operators to actually adopt IPv6. Because customers are stupid and certainly wouldn't do something as obvious as this.
Well I'm not 100% sure I understand what you are saying here.
Do I get that right that when Computer that has IPv6 on tries to connect to a server that DNS says it is available via IPv6, but actually isn't, will try to reach it via IPv6 but can not reach it via IPv6. And the Block that Mac OS X puts up to block IPv6 is - using IPv6 when its told to use IPv6.
Would that Block not simply disappear when IPv6 would work?
Apple is now hated slightly less than MS, which is pretty significant given how maybe a decade ago they were not hated at all.
Errm, you are new to this internet stuff, right? May I present you with ihateapple.com, which started hating in 1999, and stopped in 2008? Hardly the only place where the Apple haters hung around.
Because every damn organisation I VPN to uses 192.168.x.x addresses, or 172.[16-32].x.x addresses. By using a 10.x with a 24 bit mask I can use space that doesn't route, doesn't conflict with the orgs I VPN to, and that doesn't require me to reconfigure.
Unless somebody comes up with the same clever idea - see the OP.
It's also not in any danger. The law states that the number of transistors on a chip that you can buy for a fixed investment doubles every 18 months. CPUs remaining the same speed but dropping in price would continue to match this prediction as would things like SoCs gaining more domain-specific offload hardware (e.g. crypto accelerators).
Not to mention things like (gasp) GPUs. To sum up TFA "We need to put more transistors into our GPUs, say about twice as many every 18 months - that should prove Moore false."
As such, like an investment advisor or stock broker giving a seminar to prospects and clients, Al Gore was actively recommending people put money in companies he already has a financial stake in.
Yawn - Gore actually has been saying all this long before most of these companies even existed - and its quite funny he gets attacked for putting his money where his mouth is instead of doing what his opposition does, saying what their money source tells them to.
Wouldn't it be more like that the warming was so low that it could easily be explained with sampling accuracy error.
No, it would be a) only quite unlikely, just not very unlikely that there was no warming, and b) that the sample size of 10 (years in this case) is just too small to make the claim - which is exactly why they specifically asked for 10 and not more years (11 would have already tipped the scale).
I thought it failed because the poorest third were angry that they weren't going to be guilt-tripping the developed third into propping them up through international welfare.
Actually, I'm pretty sure that's what actually happened.
Not a matter of "YOU BROWN FOLK STAY POOR". We drove our car through standing water and it flooded, killed our car, we've got a mess on our hands. We're waving our arms shouting "Look if you go this way, global warming. Bad shit. Go around the long way. It's harder, but if we had known about this shit we'd be going that way too"..
While ordering a monster truck to try going through again. Which is much closer to the truth than your little analogy, because the poor countries didn't ask for more money but for the rich to actually agree to reduce emissions instead of just waving hands.
Eliot Spitzer, as AG of NY state did it to lots of businesses. Not academics though, but similar.
In what way is it similar? In that it is usually businesses actually paying the politicians to fight scientists who come upon results that if acted upon could put a little dent in the huge amounts of money these those businesses make, but improve or even save the lives of many people?
What gays can do is not act on their desires, sames as religious heterosexuals can choose not to have sex outside of marriage OR not for procreation AND not divorce when they change their minds.. and they do that sooo well !
Maybe an even better analogy would be that religious people could decide not to force their views on others.
Its only noticed when for a subset of people it drifts out too far from the rest of society.
More like: Its only "noticed" by a subset of people when they think that others must hate them just as much as they hate them. They then use that as an excuse to increase their hate.
Slashdot Mirror
Scientists sure like to doctor their research to get more funding, they are like exxon.
So? How does that prove that the vast majority of scientists, who are pretty certain that AGW is happening, are in a huge conspiracy and lying? If I would lead a vast conspiracy of scientists to get more funding, I would make sure that they are split about 50-50, to keep the money rolling in an ongoing debate. I certainly wouldn't make it all dependent on a small group of outsiders fighting the results - come to think of it, I would sell the souls of my merry bunch of scientists to an invested party having lost most ground in an scientific debate, to become that group of outsiders, because that's where the real money is. Purely hypothetical speaking of course.
Greener Than You Think by Ward Moore. Sure Bermuda Grass instead of weed, super-fertilizer instead of super-herbicide.
I dislike Monsanto as much as the average Slashdotter, but I dislike revisionism too. The farmer tested patches of his crop with Roundup and harvested and replanted those plants which were resistant. He had to have known what the farmers around him were testing, so he was willfully stealing, according to the court.
Gee, that conclusion reeks of Creationism - only Monsanto could have created Roundup resistance, Natural Selection need not apply.
Not to mention the fact that the goal of creating the crop in the first place was of course to boost sales of Roundup, which obviously worked with the farmer in question.
If everything dies, he loses all his crops and doesn't have to pay Monsanto.
Well, apart from paying Monsanto for the Roundup, of course - Muah-ha-ha!
There is no such thing as AGWs. "Global Warming" has now become "Climate Change".
Yup. Of course not the way you insinuate it happened: Frank Luntz, a political consultant (and now FOX News commentator), whose specialty is “testing language and finding words that will help his clients sell their product or turn public opinion on an issue or a candidate.”, did his job, and thus spoke in 2002
“'Climate change' is less frightening than 'global warming.' ... While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge”
Now compare speeches by president Bush from 2001 and 2003, when talking of the issues of Global Warming. Not only that, the administration made it a policy for all government employed scientists to use the new-speak word.
I have never owned a laptop with screen resolution as low as an iPad.
Are you even old enough to drink?
They won't let me in. My jeans are not sufficiently tight enough to be deemed a "cool cat."
Nope, they are too loose, try pulling them up to cover your ass.
Without a (convenient) keyboard? I'm skeptical, but open to discussion.
Just use any Bluetooth keyboard.
Jailbreak detection?
Are they admitting that they spy on their users phones outside their running apps?
In some countries that might get them jail without possibility of jailbreaking.
Paranoid idiot.
I'm going to stick my neck out and say that I pirate games I don't want to pay for because generally too expensive to purchase. If I could pay $10 for each of a dozen games that I've pirated in the past year instead of $120 for two, I probably would.
Of course the iPhone game with the high pirate rate talked about in TOFA was $3.99 at first, later $1.99 - and the pirates tried and tried but never bought.
due to the problem, server operators delay support for IPv6 to avoid losing customers. it certainly "blocks ipv6 adoption."
So the server operators delay support for IPv6 because ISPs don't support IPv6, and ISPs delay support for IPv6 because server operators don't support IPv6 - and clearly Apple blocks Pv6 because they support IPv6 instead of just using IPv4 like everyone else does to avoid this problem. And by problem we don't mean lacking support for IPv6, but a delay that for whatever reason wouldn't make customers force ISPs and server operators to actually adopt IPv6. Because customers are stupid and certainly wouldn't do something as obvious as this.
Do I get that right that when Computer that has IPv6 on tries to connect to a server that DNS says it is available via IPv6, but actually isn't, will try to reach it via IPv6 but can not reach it via IPv6. And the Block that Mac OS X puts up to block IPv6 is - using IPv6 when its told to use IPv6.
Would that Block not simply disappear when IPv6 would work?
Apple is now hated slightly less than MS, which is pretty significant given how maybe a decade ago they were not hated at all.
Errm, you are new to this internet stuff, right? May I present you with ihateapple.com, which started hating in 1999, and stopped in 2008? Hardly the only place where the Apple haters hung around.
Google is reachable by IPv6 if you are ready for it.
We know - and guess what: half of all IPv6-capable systems seen by Google are Macs. Gee I wonder what went wrong - with the Norwegian's test.
tuna fish sandwich eating
As opposed to all those guys who eat tuna beef, or tuna chicken?
No, as opposed to tuna mammal, aka dolphin. He's of the picky kind.
Because every damn organisation I VPN to uses 192.168.x.x addresses, or 172.[16-32].x.x addresses. By using a 10.x with a 24 bit mask I can use space that doesn't route, doesn't conflict with the orgs I VPN to, and that doesn't require me to reconfigure.
Unless somebody comes up with the same clever idea - see the OP.
It's also not in any danger. The law states that the number of transistors on a chip that you can buy for a fixed investment doubles every 18 months. CPUs remaining the same speed but dropping in price would continue to match this prediction as would things like SoCs gaining more domain-specific offload hardware (e.g. crypto accelerators).
Not to mention things like (gasp) GPUs. To sum up TFA "We need to put more transistors into our GPUs, say about twice as many every 18 months - that should prove Moore false."
I've not been following the whole shebang closely but I did hear that some poor nations were seeking reparations
That's what it all boils down to - you "heard" something, and I can guess where you herd it. FOX News? Wattsupwiththat?
As such, like an investment advisor or stock broker giving a seminar to prospects and clients, Al Gore was actively recommending people put money in companies he already has a financial stake in.
Yawn - Gore actually has been saying all this long before most of these companies even existed - and its quite funny he gets attacked for putting his money where his mouth is instead of doing what his opposition does, saying what their money source tells them to.
Wouldn't it be more like that the warming was so low that it could easily be explained with sampling accuracy error.
No, it would be a) only quite unlikely, just not very unlikely that there was no warming, and b) that the sample size of 10 (years in this case) is just too small to make the claim - which is exactly why they specifically asked for 10 and not more years (11 would have already tipped the scale).
I thought it failed because the poorest third were angry that they weren't going to be guilt-tripping the developed third into propping them up through international welfare.
Actually, I'm pretty sure that's what actually happened.
Not a matter of "YOU BROWN FOLK STAY POOR". We drove our car through standing water and it flooded, killed our car, we've got a mess on our hands. We're waving our arms shouting "Look if you go this way, global warming. Bad shit. Go around the long way. It's harder, but if we had known about this shit we'd be going that way too"..
While ordering a monster truck to try going through again. Which is much closer to the truth than your little analogy, because the poor countries didn't ask for more money but for the rich to actually agree to reduce emissions instead of just waving hands.
Eliot Spitzer, as AG of NY state did it to lots of businesses. Not academics though, but similar.
In what way is it similar? In that it is usually businesses actually paying the politicians to fight scientists who come upon results that if acted upon could put a little dent in the huge amounts of money these those businesses make, but improve or even save the lives of many people?
Mod parent up. Climategate was the result of scientist taking their findings out of the field of science and into politics.
Nope, Climategate was the result of politicians trying to smear the scientists they wanted to ignore.
What gays can do is not act on their desires, sames as religious heterosexuals can choose not to have sex outside of marriage OR not for procreation AND not divorce when they change their minds.. and they do that sooo well !
Maybe an even better analogy would be that religious people could decide not to force their views on others.
Its only noticed when for a subset of people it drifts out too far from the rest of society.
More like: Its only "noticed" by a subset of people when they think that others must hate them just as much as they hate them. They then use that as an excuse to increase their hate.