the oil companies have an incredibly nasty history - revolutions, wars etc. Look up their involvement with the Shah of Iran, for example. It's hard sometimes to see where Govt policy ends and the oil business begins. If they'll stoop to try and bend the regulations, I don't see why they shouldn't stoop to stirring a little mud over global warming.
Really, get out the basement sometimes. It's a whole different view.
I agree about scientists being human... but that doesn't take into consideration the sheer amount of money being sloshed around the system by the petroleum companies with the intent to scupper any consensus, or indeed progress towards tackling global warning. Beats the hell out of any local biases.
Your cynicism only lowers the level of the debate indeed manages to destroy whatever debate there might be, and any effort we might expend trying to do the right thing, whatever that might be. Are you sure you don't work for a petroleum company?
Yes, the IPCC might have vested interests - although you've yet to explain what these are - however, they're the ones bringing the bad news.
As a general rule, possibly. But this is a GOOGLE browser. Every mother and their son will be over this like flies on shit. Well, may that's not quite the metaphor I should be reaching for...
Often in these conversations, it is assumed that a "perfect" debate goes on, that it is hermetically sealed within the scientific community. Yet nothing can be farther from the truth. For one thing, we have vested interests on the anti-side of the debate - Big Petroleum - who have and are waging a huge campaign to ensure that those outside the consensus are receiving a huge helping hand. Indeed, the waters are muddied, and those *inside* the consensus are vilified by Big Petoleums useful stupids. Witness the remarks in this debate which includes much mocking of the IPCC - indeed, my father called these guys crackpots - yet they are scientists drawn from across the world including the USA. Indeed, Bush's administration have repeatedly *watered* down the IPCC reports. The IPCC are a bunch of scientists trying to do good science.
I for one believe in Global Warning, and would be happy to be proved. With me in this consensus are people like BP and some major insurers. I think the insurance companies have been convinced for a while now. However, I am becoming exasperated by those who nitpick a theory which is already quite loose; rather we should look for more facts to confirm or deny. Quickly.
Yet I fear the anti-position has become too entrenched. I fear that governments are preparing for change rather than preventing change.
IIRC, the whole selling point for Windows is the fact you can plug different bits of hardware into it. That's what Bill Gates means by "freedom of choice". So, this is MS handling their business model *badly*. If you're gonna do this kind of thing, then the system should work properly, no matter what kind of shitty hardware is thrown at it. Putting hardware drivers in userland and keeping them there seems a good idea - as other users have pointed out - but putting them into the kernel is the opposite. I think the need for speed was for driven by greed; rather, the need to grind the opposition into dirt. Whatever. What this is really about is the highly public display of the result of a series of really crap management decisions. And that's what MS now is: a badly managed monopoly. A monopoly doesn't need good management, just a bad one that can wave aside the smell from the occasional turd.
Don't think so. The Brits created a genocide in the Carribean before these things got popular. The Australia war against the Aborigine was the Brits as well. See Robert Hughes The Fatal Shore: good on the prison system but also a side-light on the extermination of Aborigines. All of the British former colonies were pretty disgraceful when it came to dealing with the natives. Burma - read Orwell's Keep The Aspidistra Flying, who was in the Burma Civil Service as a policeman - was a case in point: the British colonial administration was brutal, nasty and a leech upon the Burmese compared to their relatively benign presence in India. The whole sorry mess was going on until the 60s. Someone mentioned Kenya, another bloody episode.
Did I mention that the Brits have selective short memories? They're also good at self-mythologizing.
The Brits were never afraid of killing a few wogs when the need demanded and during the Quit India campaign of the 40s, India suffered it's fair share of suppression. You see, although Gandhi always countenanced the Peace & Love approach, a lot of people died whilst his campaigns were under way.
In the end, he didn't so much win as the British give up. The gig was up and the Brits knew it.
I'd like to think this is what is happening with MS, but I'm not holding my breath whilst that idiot Balmer is in charge.
No it's not. Most problems can be solved without force. Force is expensive, alienating and brutal. To not understand that displays a disabling black-and-white vision of the world, an inhumane vision dedicated to body-counts and spin, your main objectives lost before you've begun. Force should always be the means of last resort, when all else has failed.
Come off it, none of these tactics are about re-building: they're to ensure a pliant client state which does what the American government wants. Just like Iraq.
Most peace-time armies do not practice empire-building, even on the quiet.
But get involved how? A fucking great army shoving it's size nine boots down the necks of the populace? That's what I think most people on this topic mean. OTOH, I think it would be better if soft power were used - you know, trade, cultural relations, investment. That kind of thing. You never know, if that had been tried, we might now have a peaceable Iraq without the blood-shed and Iran as the local dominant power.
This is the manual of an army going to war to subjugate a nation. It's a manual for imperialism. Most of the plays are straight out of the Land Forces of the British Empire.
This isn't a manual of an army whose main aim is defence of the nation.
I thought Americans were against building an Empire. Apparently not.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's see, Exxon trying to block anti-pollution methods for one thing ... http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/10/326170.shtml
the oil companies have an incredibly nasty history - revolutions, wars etc. Look up their involvement with the Shah of Iran, for example. It's hard sometimes to see where Govt policy ends and the oil business begins. If they'll stoop to try and bend the regulations, I don't see why they shouldn't stoop to stirring a little mud over global warming.
Really, get out the basement sometimes. It's a whole different view.
I agree about scientists being human ... but that doesn't take into consideration the sheer amount of money being sloshed around the system by the petroleum companies with the intent to scupper any consensus, or indeed progress towards tackling global warning. Beats the hell out of any local biases.
So both of you are missing *my* point.
Your cynicism only lowers the level of the debate indeed manages to destroy whatever debate there might be, and any effort we might expend trying to do the right thing, whatever that might be. Are you sure you don't work for a petroleum company?
Yes, the IPCC might have vested interests - although you've yet to explain what these are - however, they're the ones bringing the bad news.
As a general rule, possibly. But this is a GOOGLE browser. Every mother and their son will be over this like flies on shit. Well, may that's not quite the metaphor I should be reaching for ...
Often in these conversations, it is assumed that a "perfect" debate goes on, that it is hermetically sealed within the scientific community. Yet nothing can be farther from the truth. For one thing, we have vested interests on the anti-side of the debate - Big Petroleum - who have and are waging a huge campaign to ensure that those outside the consensus are receiving a huge helping hand. Indeed, the waters are muddied, and those *inside* the consensus are vilified by Big Petoleums useful stupids. Witness the remarks in this debate which includes much mocking of the IPCC - indeed, my father called these guys crackpots - yet they are scientists drawn from across the world including the USA. Indeed, Bush's administration have repeatedly *watered* down the IPCC reports. The IPCC are a bunch of scientists trying to do good science.
I for one believe in Global Warning, and would be happy to be proved. With me in this consensus are people like BP and some major insurers. I think the insurance companies have been convinced for a while now. However, I am becoming exasperated by those who nitpick a theory which is already quite loose; rather we should look for more facts to confirm or deny. Quickly.
Yet I fear the anti-position has become too entrenched. I fear that governments are preparing for change rather than preventing change.
It's called "helping your mates out"; in this case, Bushes future investors and advisors.
If the Bush govt was a true believer in free markets, these banks would have gone to the wall.
Oh, do be serious. I give you one example: gold farmers. Yeah, pay someone to rank the results for you. See? System destroyed before it's begun.
It's Canadian North they're pointing at, the One True North. They like that their milk gets put in BAGS!!!
2:1 in the place where I work. Yes, that's 2/3 managers to 1/3 programmers. I'd be interested in hearing of other ratios.
What are these "datastructures" you speak of?
IIRC, the whole selling point for Windows is the fact you can plug different bits of hardware into it. That's what Bill Gates means by "freedom of choice". So, this is MS handling their business model *badly*. If you're gonna do this kind of thing, then the system should work properly, no matter what kind of shitty hardware is thrown at it. Putting hardware drivers in userland and keeping them there seems a good idea - as other users have pointed out - but putting them into the kernel is the opposite. I think the need for speed was for driven by greed; rather, the need to grind the opposition into dirt. Whatever. What this is really about is the highly public display of the result of a series of really crap management decisions. And that's what MS now is: a badly managed monopoly. A monopoly doesn't need good management, just a bad one that can wave aside the smell from the occasional turd.
... nah. No I don't.
It's the X15B 50 years too late ... but the X15B had *class*. This has the class of a fat turd. Bastards.
Don't think so. The Brits created a genocide in the Carribean before these things got popular. The Australia war against the Aborigine was the Brits as well. See Robert Hughes The Fatal Shore: good on the prison system but also a side-light on the extermination of Aborigines. All of the British former colonies were pretty disgraceful when it came to dealing with the natives. Burma - read Orwell's Keep The Aspidistra Flying, who was in the Burma Civil Service as a policeman - was a case in point: the British colonial administration was brutal, nasty and a leech upon the Burmese compared to their relatively benign presence in India. The whole sorry mess was going on until the 60s. Someone mentioned Kenya, another bloody episode.
Did I mention that the Brits have selective short memories? They're also good at self-mythologizing.
Nah. The Brits weren't squeamish at all. A lot of unarmed Indians died before the Brits quit India.
Massacre
The Brits were never afraid of killing a few wogs when the need demanded and during the Quit India campaign of the 40s, India suffered it's fair share of suppression. You see, although Gandhi always countenanced the Peace & Love approach, a lot of people died whilst his campaigns were under way.
In the end, he didn't so much win as the British give up. The gig was up and the Brits knew it.
I'd like to think this is what is happening with MS, but I'm not holding my breath whilst that idiot Balmer is in charge.
ohhh, the sight of anonymous asking for cites tingles my irony ...
cnn good enough for you?
Shouldn't that be
MachIne Learning for Fast ON Target Optimization And Speed Technology
No it's not. Most problems can be solved without force. Force is expensive, alienating and brutal. To not understand that displays a disabling black-and-white vision of the world, an inhumane vision dedicated to body-counts and spin, your main objectives lost before you've begun. Force should always be the means of last resort, when all else has failed.
Come off it, none of these tactics are about re-building: they're to ensure a pliant client state which does what the American government wants. Just like Iraq.
Most peace-time armies do not practice empire-building, even on the quiet.
But get involved how? A fucking great army shoving it's size nine boots down the necks of the populace? That's what I think most people on this topic mean. OTOH, I think it would be better if soft power were used - you know, trade, cultural relations, investment. That kind of thing. You never know, if that had been tried, we might now have a peaceable Iraq without the blood-shed and Iran as the local dominant power.
This manual describes operations for an Army building an Empire. It is neither a manual for peace-time operations, nor for self-defense.
This is the manual of an army going to war to subjugate a nation. It's a manual for imperialism. Most of the plays are straight out of the Land Forces of the British Empire.
This isn't a manual of an army whose main aim is defence of the nation.
I thought Americans were against building an Empire. Apparently not.
Still, "googling for it" seems a tad extreme, and would suggest that it's not installed as often as it should, if it's that good.
The whole affair doesn't have that good a feel about it, the sort of feel-good that should come from a company with multi-billion dollar investment.
if it's that good, why isn't it in the auto-updates?