The long drawn out court cases are there because it's possible to use the law to stall the process. That still doesn't change the simple, basic facts of the matter.
There's an issue here, and it's one Microsoft faced as well. It doesn't matter that Yandex would make a browser just like Google does if Google is abusing its dominance in one market to take over another. Microsoft abused its OS monopoly to take over the browser market, which was a violation of competition law.
If Google's browser is dominant in Russia, and at the same time "forces" people to use Google's search engine in Russia, that could well be an example of anti-competitive practices.
No, indicating that you know it might be controversial indicates that you are aware of that, and that you might still try to be rational about it. That's a good thing.
Nice FUD attempt there. You are trying to mislead people by omitting the fact that IBM doesn't really have anything to do with it. Groklaw is on servers run by someone else, not IBM. That they happen to be IBM computers is irrelevant because Groklaw is not involved in what kind of hardware the site is running on since it's being hosted by someone else (again, not IBM).
The data might be correct, but his presentation of the data is blatantly false. Also, he signed an evangelical declaration about how God made everything, and the planet regulates itself because God says so, so that's the final word. No science needed.
Fact: Spencer is a creationist who has signed an evangelical declaration which states that God made the planet and the climate is under his control, therefore science which shows anything other than that is wrong no matter what.
You are moving the goalpost. The other guy was spreading lies about the hockey stick, and you are trying to change the subject after he was caught red handed.
I don't believe scientific results theories on "consensus", I believe them if I understand them and I see lots of evidence supporting them.
On the contrary, you blindly accept the scientific consensus all the time. Every time you drive a car. Every time you use your PC. Every time you go on a plane. Your life is based on assuming that the consensus is right.
So why is global warming different from all the other areas of science that you blindly accept? Is it because you don't like the facts, and therefore deny them?
The consensus describes the collective scientific judgment. The consensus lets you move forward because it describes the understanding of the world as it is, and one can build on that.
If you want to challenge the consensus, you need to do actual science. Spewing denialist propaganda is not going to cut it.
Slashdot Mirror
H.264 is not an open standard. Not as defined by the W3C anyway. An open standard on the web can't be patent-encumbered.
So you would kill someone for searching your daughter? Wow.
The search selection screen was specifically disabled for Russia.
70%? No, the limit is well below that. 30-40% or so, I think. And the point is that Chrome is growing fast.
The long drawn out court cases are there because it's possible to use the law to stall the process. That still doesn't change the simple, basic facts of the matter.
Not sure what your point is. His point is that Google is acting in a malicious manner. Do you deny that?
The co-founder of Yandex in Russia is doing astroturfing for Microsoft?
Just like nothing stopped other browser vendors from creating their own desktop OS to compete with MSIE?
Persecution complex? Google specifically disabled the selection screen in Russia. Are you saying everyone is imagining this?
It specifically leaves out this option in Russia. You know... don't do evil?
There's an issue here, and it's one Microsoft faced as well. It doesn't matter that Yandex would make a browser just like Google does if Google is abusing its dominance in one market to take over another. Microsoft abused its OS monopoly to take over the browser market, which was a violation of competition law.
If Google's browser is dominant in Russia, and at the same time "forces" people to use Google's search engine in Russia, that could well be an example of anti-competitive practices.
YouTube had a massive user base. Hardly anyone used Google Video. Not comparable to Facebook/Instagram.
No, indicating that you know it might be controversial indicates that you are aware of that, and that you might still try to be rational about it. That's a good thing.
Nice FUD attempt there. You are trying to mislead people by omitting the fact that IBM doesn't really have anything to do with it. Groklaw is on servers run by someone else, not IBM. That they happen to be IBM computers is irrelevant because Groklaw is not involved in what kind of hardware the site is running on since it's being hosted by someone else (again, not IBM).
That's not all you need to do, but such a preface at least indicates that you are trying to actually post something of value.
And yet he gets just about everything wrong... Seriously, he's a hack.
The data might be correct, but his presentation of the data is blatantly false. Also, he signed an evangelical declaration about how God made everything, and the planet regulates itself because God says so, so that's the final word. No science needed.
Fact: Spencer is a creationist who has signed an evangelical declaration which states that God made the planet and the climate is under his control, therefore science which shows anything other than that is wrong no matter what.
You are moving the goalpost. The other guy was spreading lies about the hockey stick, and you are trying to change the subject after he was caught red handed.
Yes, if you look at graphs from a creationist with a history of lies, distortion and cherry-picking, you can pretty much "prove" anything.
On the contrary, you blindly accept the scientific consensus all the time. Every time you drive a car. Every time you use your PC. Every time you go on a plane. Your life is based on assuming that the consensus is right.
So why is global warming different from all the other areas of science that you blindly accept? Is it because you don't like the facts, and therefore deny them?
Al Gore was "making critical comments on subject matter with which they have no background"? Al Gore was actually saying "the scientists are wrong"?
Utter nonsense. Have you ever read a single scientific paper?
What climate scientists are claiming that the sky is falling, astroturfer?
The consensus describes the collective scientific judgment. The consensus lets you move forward because it describes the understanding of the world as it is, and one can build on that.
If you want to challenge the consensus, you need to do actual science. Spewing denialist propaganda is not going to cut it.