That's global smartphone market share. Show a graph with global market share of ALL wireless handsets, not just smartphones.
http://forum2.mobile-review.com/showthread.php?t=85840 Apple had 2.5% world-wide marketshare amongst mobile phone handsets in Q3 2009. When the iPhone was released in 2007, Jobs announced they were going for 1% of the market - and people here laughed their asses off.
Let's ignore the long lines in front of the Apple Store in New York when the iPhone was released - what about the fact that the first photo of the Hudson River landing was shot and Twittered with an iPhone? Okay, that could have been WiFi on the ferry...
First of all, the economy can kill itself much better than any CO2 reductions could. Second, you already predicted the destruction of the economy when "alarmists" called for cleaner air - talk about an alarmist. And third: how much will it cost to deal with runaway Global Warming?
Where they are? I would guess this article is about them. ANd what makes you think it is "perfectly good" - oh, yeah, because it "proves" your point. Gee, a little selective on your side of the argument.
There is little doubt that the email and files that were released were from the CRU and they contain emails showing that some of the leading people involved WERE actively trying to suppress papers by people with opposing viewpoints. Is it still a conspiracy theory when it's true?
Translation: FREE SPEECH in AMERICA is
"BULL SHIT",
EVIL EDUCATORS
block and suppress
www.timecube.com.
Showing that the system was rigged and that some valid papers were rejected is enough. Even showing that a single valid paper was rejected is enough, because it's not supposed to be possible.
A conspiracy has been exposed, and that's enough to start questioning the conspirators and treating the evidence skeptically.
You haven't even shown that those papers reject were valid. One guy (out of several reviewers) writing he rejected a paper sure as hell doesn't prove there is a conspiracy.
Right among their "There is no Global Warming" articles are "There is no Global Financial Crisis" articles. Obviously they live in happy La-La-Libertarian-Land.
If you read my comment carefully, you will notice that I in no way suggest doing anything that violated section 117(b). There is no "redistribution" at all.
So what youare suggesting is that if Psystar hadn't done what they have done, it wouldn't have been illegal.
If I installed Windows on a PC, and then installed the GRUB bootloader to boot WIndows, would I be violating anything?
If I installed Windows on a PC, and then installed a bootloader based on a modified GRUB bootloader to boot WIndows, without releasing source code for the modifications, would I be violating anything? Which coincidentally brings us to another thing Psystar did.
So Apple just gets to assume that I know what the license is going to say? I strongly disagree with that. Such thinking assumes that all software licenses are the same, but they aren't - some are unrestrictive, some let the company electronically search your hard drive at any time. If you assume that customers know what's inside the license text, they're all going to assume the worst and other, less restrictive forms of software will suffer.
But the one for OS X is available at the Apple web site - 3 clicks from the main page.
First of all, she's not a journalist travelling from a Middle Eastern country documenting the hate against Israel, she's an American displaying hate against Israel with her own personal belongings.
And she was displaying it by being a Jew not living in Israel. So what's next, are the Israelis going to attack Jews outside Israel so they move to Israel - again?
Whether the Israeli military used white phosphorous when targeting civilians (the evidence suggests they were using it the way everyone else does, as flares at night to light up targets so the wrong building/person isn't shot) is irrelevant.
Considering they mostly used it at daytime, it surely isn't.
(I suppose he could have tried not accepting it, but I doubt that would have gone over any better than accepting it).
It would have gone over pretty good with the domestic crowd, the overwhelming majority of which feels that the award was unearned.
FOX News would have found something wrong about it. And would have convinced the ditto-heads (or Beck-heads or tea-baggers or whatever). I'm not disturbed enough to say what they'd complain about, but they would.
The problem isn't public mistrust of science, it's crusading scientists.
Scientists, like, military commanders and supreme court judges, need to be apolitical. If you want to be an advocate for a cause, you need to not be involved in the science associated with the cause or your motivations and credibility will be called into question.
Even if your motivations are consciously honest or true, its still possible that strong belief in your cause may influence your science.
But if you discount all politicizing scientists arguing against AGW, you have zero scientific support left for the skeptics.
There is nothing out of context about the fraud involved in selectively using a temperature proxy only for specific time periods when it agrees with your preconceived notion. That is "Mike's trick... to hide the decline [in the tree ring proxy temperature]."
Let me guess - you are amongst those who believe that "several studies prove that the primary force of climate change is the sun" pointing to the nice graphs with the nice correlation between [some supposed measure of sun activity] and temperature (and suddenly correlation proves causation) over a couple of years. And that you refuse to believe anyone telling you that outside that couple of years, the correlation simply ceases to exist, and the the papers on purpose "cut off the decline".
Yeah, I know that story. And you take that as the truth? According to the Curriculum Vitae of Zbigniew Jaworowski "Since 1993 he is working at the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, now as the chairman of the Scientific Council." (and he still is). How the hell could he have been fired from an institute in Norway years later?
And of course the "this paper puts the Norsk Polarinstitutt in disrepute" - because it's shoddy science.
But hey, we are used to lies and shoddy science from the "skeptics".
Slashdot Mirror
Cool story, troll.
Thanks for signing your post.
I am still laughing my ass off - with Apple having hardly two digit market share in desktop/laptop market. History does repeat sometimes.
And Apple is laughing all the way to the bank, so even if your ass stays firmly attached, they are still better off than you.
That's global smartphone market share. Show a graph with global market share of ALL wireless handsets, not just smartphones.
http://forum2.mobile-review.com/showthread.php?t=85840 Apple had 2.5% world-wide marketshare amongst mobile phone handsets in Q3 2009. When the iPhone was released in 2007, Jobs announced they were going for 1% of the market - and people here laughed their asses off.
Let's ignore the long lines in front of the Apple Store in New York when the iPhone was released - what about the fact that the first photo of the Hudson River landing was shot and Twittered with an iPhone? Okay, that could have been WiFi on the ferry...
Well, why do the "skeptics" only quote the same handfull of emails, not the hundreds released?
Yeah, exactly, only 99% of the glaciers are melting! That's not what I call a consensus!
Corporations != the free market. There was capitalism before we became the corporate state we (the U.S.) are now.
But free market --> Corporations IOW capitalism kills itself. Thanks for admitting that.
First of all, the economy can kill itself much better than any CO2 reductions could. Second, you already predicted the destruction of the economy when "alarmists" called for cleaner air - talk about an alarmist. And third: how much will it cost to deal with runaway Global Warming?
Where they are? I would guess this article is about them. ANd what makes you think it is "perfectly good" - oh, yeah, because it "proves" your point. Gee, a little selective on your side of the argument.
There is little doubt that the email and files that were released were from the CRU and they contain emails showing that some of the leading people involved WERE actively trying to suppress papers by people with opposing viewpoints. Is it still a conspiracy theory when it's true?
Translation: FREE SPEECH in AMERICA is "BULL SHIT", EVIL EDUCATORS block and suppress www.timecube.com.
No, you don't actually.
Showing that the system was rigged and that some valid papers were rejected is enough. Even showing that a single valid paper was rejected is enough, because it's not supposed to be possible.
A conspiracy has been exposed, and that's enough to start questioning the conspirators and treating the evidence skeptically.
You haven't even shown that those papers reject were valid. One guy (out of several reviewers) writing he rejected a paper sure as hell doesn't prove there is a conspiracy.
Now you just have to show that EVERY paper negative about AGCC was always rejected by every journal.
Which of course they can't, because they keep quoting those papers like mad. Even when they have been shown full of holes later.
Right among their "There is no Global Warming" articles are "There is no Global Financial Crisis" articles. Obviously they live in happy La-La-Libertarian-Land.
If you read my comment carefully, you will notice that I in no way suggest doing anything that violated section 117(b). There is no "redistribution" at all.
So what youare suggesting is that if Psystar hadn't done what they have done, it wouldn't have been illegal.
If I installed Windows on a PC, and then installed the GRUB bootloader to boot WIndows, would I be violating anything?
If I installed Windows on a PC, and then installed a bootloader based on a modified GRUB bootloader to boot WIndows, without releasing source code for the modifications, would I be violating anything? Which coincidentally brings us to another thing Psystar did.
So Apple just gets to assume that I know what the license is going to say? I strongly disagree with that. Such thinking assumes that all software licenses are the same, but they aren't - some are unrestrictive, some let the company electronically search your hard drive at any time. If you assume that customers know what's inside the license text, they're all going to assume the worst and other, less restrictive forms of software will suffer.
But the one for OS X is available at the Apple web site - 3 clicks from the main page.
First of all, she's not a journalist travelling from a Middle Eastern country documenting the hate against Israel, she's an American displaying hate against Israel with her own personal belongings.
And she was displaying it by being a Jew not living in Israel. So what's next, are the Israelis going to attack Jews outside Israel so they move to Israel - again?
Whether the Israeli military used white phosphorous when targeting civilians (the evidence suggests they were using it the way everyone else does, as flares at night to light up targets so the wrong building/person isn't shot) is irrelevant.
Considering they mostly used it at daytime, it surely isn't.
I guess her true crime was being an American Jew who can't be drafted for bor(e)der control duty on the Egyptian border.
Actually, they were declared a state in 1947 by the UN.
But hey, sometimes facts just arn't as fun are they?
After a long terror campaign by various Zionist groups - hey it may work for Palestinians too.
At least one drilling caused cracks in dozens of buildings, and a month ago one caused water to gush from holes around the site for several hours.
(I suppose he could have tried not accepting it, but I doubt that would have gone over any better than accepting it).
It would have gone over pretty good with the domestic crowd, the overwhelming majority of which feels that the award was unearned.
FOX News would have found something wrong about it. And would have convinced the ditto-heads (or Beck-heads or tea-baggers or whatever). I'm not disturbed enough to say what they'd complain about, but they would.
The problem isn't public mistrust of science, it's crusading scientists.
Scientists, like, military commanders and supreme court judges, need to be apolitical. If you want to be an advocate for a cause, you need to not be involved in the science associated with the cause or your motivations and credibility will be called into question.
Even if your motivations are consciously honest or true, its still possible that strong belief in your cause may influence your science.
But if you discount all politicizing scientists arguing against AGW, you have zero scientific support left for the skeptics.
There is nothing out of context about the fraud involved in selectively using a temperature proxy only for specific time periods when it agrees with your preconceived notion. That is "Mike's trick ... to hide the decline [in the tree ring proxy temperature]."
Let me guess - you are amongst those who believe that "several studies prove that the primary force of climate change is the sun" pointing to the nice graphs with the nice correlation between [some supposed measure of sun activity] and temperature (and suddenly correlation proves causation) over a couple of years. And that you refuse to believe anyone telling you that outside that couple of years, the correlation simply ceases to exist, and the the papers on purpose "cut off the decline".
And of course the "this paper puts the Norsk Polarinstitutt in disrepute" - because it's shoddy science.
But hey, we are used to lies and shoddy science from the "skeptics".