As I've already said, sometimes it only takes a little bit to put a system out of balance....You can introduce perturbation up to a point and one tiny bit more and everything goes crazy. It's non-linear.
The keywords being "sometimes" and "up to a point". Your "logic" is that non-linear systems exist and they may have a breaking point, therefore, the climate must be a non-linear system that is close to its breaking point. You could have made the exact same argument back when the first humans tamed fire and argued that this man-made carbon was going push the climate past its tipping point. Several tens of thousands of years later and we know that this did not happen.
That's why you are wrong: your argument, when applied to a situation where we know the answer, gives the wrong answer, therefore, it's crap. The climate is not a simple system and using trivially simple logic arguments is not going to work. You need a data-based scientific approach and those who do that are certainly raising serious concerns about rising sea levels, ecological damage, droughts, floods etc. These are all extremely serious consequences but none of them has claimed that it will result in the extinction of life or similar doomsday scenarios.
The flip side of this is that US technology should not be trusted any more than Chinese technology.
Just imagine the outcry though if China had banned the sale of the iPhone giving the same reasons! These sort of national security type arguments are likely to end up backfiring on the US when other governments start to apply the same logic.
There are maybe 1500 volcanoes that are known to have been active in the past 10,000 years.
Yes, and if you have no idea what the average amount of CO2 emitted per eruption is plus the average frequency of eruptions then you have no way to know whether volcanoes out emit cars no matter how many cars there are or how frequently they are used. You might "feel" that 1.2 billion cars is enough to out emit volcanoes but if someone else feels it is not then whose feelings matter? The right answer is neither: what matters is the truth which you find by going out and measuring the relevant quantities you need to calculate the answer.
Logic without science is how you end up thinking that the Earth is flat.
One of the lakes specifically mentioned, Lake Geneva, is not only not pristine but there is no way that anyone could ever think it would be! It's a large lake with several large towns on the shore. Geneva in particular used to use the water in a factory (the original cause of the famous Jet d'eau) and it has ferries which criss-cross between the shore towns. This is not even close to being "pristine".
If there's something systemic that is preventing women from breaking into directing, that's potentially a huge pool of talent wasted.
True but the problem here is that having fewer women directors than men does not automatically mean that there is something systemic that needs to be fixed and even if there is something like this then this sort of bean-counting tells you absolutely nothing about what the problem is.
We need to move beyond simply counting the number of men and women in each profession and find out the reasons behind why there are more women in nursing or more men in directing etc. If it is due to sexism in the profession or industry then this has to be fixed but if it due to sexism at home e.g. women taking on more childcare responsibilities than men then forcing quotas, positive discrimination etc on those hiring will have no effect in addressing the problem and will cause a backlash because you are now adding unfairness to a something which, in this scenario, would be reasonably fair.
The social scientist is telling you that if you get people to believe that we have all royally fucked up, and that we have to change our behaviors now in order to keep this planet habitable for our kids and grandkids...
...and that is why he is an idiot because he has no clue how real science works. Even with the worst projections of climate change, the planet remains habitable: the problem is that the habitable regions will change causing huge upheaval. Science will expose this huge exaggeration for what it is and the effect will be that people feel far less urgency to deal with climate change. Fixing climate change will require a long, sustained effort on an international scale and the only way you are going to get that is by being honest.
I mean really, have you ever stood behind a car and smelled the exhaust?....You don't even need climate change science to arrive at a logical conclusion
Have you ever stood next to a volcano? Seen a forest fire? etc. These are vastly more powerful than a car exhaust so if we are going to abandon science how are you going to show that a car exhausts damage the environment while erupting volcanoes, forest fires etc. do not? That's why you need science. For every example you can come up with there is an opposite just as "logical" counter example which is why logic is not going to help you. You need science to figure out what is actually going on.
No, it's exactly the same thing when you are talking about Apple fan boys. If any of them had noticed the tiniest change we would definitely have heard about it by now!
No, we can fight climate change by emitting less CO2. And that's the only way we can fight it.
That's simply not true. The best, long term solution is definitely to stop, or least reduce, CO2 emissions. However, we have a legacy of what we have already emitted and for the forseeable future we are still going to be emitting sizeable amounts of CO2. Hence, capturing and trapping the CO2 we have already emitted plus what we are going to emit is a very sensible way to fight climate change if we can do it.
What we should definitely NOT do is listen to a 86 year old social scientist making apocalyptic predictions which are unsupported by real science.
We are all genetically defective in one way or another. Problems usually only arise when two people with the same defects decide to have kids which is why we have laws against incest. With this one limitation self-selection of a mate works well - after all, it's how humans and all other species evolved.
Sounds like a plausible explanation of how you might break compatibility. However, given that the new protocol had no noticeable effect on the user experience - and given how quickly they reversed it probably no non-noticeable benefits either - that still suggests a dubious motivation for making it.
My guess is not all hardware is exactly identical in every way. Even those that are designed to be exact copies might have slight differences that cause malfunctions.
True but this was a working system. The displays used to work absolutely fine and then suddenly stopped after a software update which appeared to add no new features related to the display functionality. This was not a hardware malfunction. While it is possible to concoct scenarios where this sort of thing could happen entirely by accident you are beginning to stretch the bounds of probability. However, when you then include the fact that basically all 3rd part screens were affected for me that stretches probability beyond breaking point unless all the 3rd party screens were identical.
Yes, but that would generally mean that they would never have worked. This is a situation where a display worked absolutely fine and then suddenly stopped working after a software update. Clearly, the display could communicate at a hardware level.
This isn't helped at the university level where lots of liberal teachers preach that blue collar workers are nothing but a bunch of dumb hicks that are not smart enough to find something better.
Sorry but this is utterly wrong. First, at the university level you have professors, not teachers, and secondly, I have never once, nor heard any of my colleagues, ever disparage blue collar work. Indeed as researchers, we often work alongside those skilled in the trades because they have the skills we academics lack that are needed to build research equipment and apparatus. I would say that we view them as equals with a different, but just as useful, skillset than our own.
The other reason that you are wrong is that your logic fails to explain why high school leavers are avoiding the trades. Even if students encountered negative attitudes to the trades at University (which I strongly dispute) by this point they have already made their decision to go to University so it would have no appreciable effect on the numbers that choose to go to university vs the trades.
maybe if Apple was really cracking down on 3rd party parts use they would have...
If they had done any of those things they would probably have ended up in serious trouble, perhaps not in the US but in the EU almost certainly. However with what happened they can accomplish the same goal without all the legal problems. Now everyone knows that non-apple repairs might be detected and disabled at any time in the future, entirely by "accident" of course, and while those "bugs" might be fixed you could be without a phone for a few weeks and who whats to chance that?
Of course it is entirely possible that this was as represented - a genuine bug - but it seems like a somewhat unlikely one to have occurred by accident. I'm also very suspicious of any "accident" where a company reaps significant financial benefit at the expense of competitors.
That's like claiming that a toy surprise is a reason for obesity because it is a key ingredient in happy meals.
If you are eating the toy surprise then I definitely agree that obesity is not your primary concern. However, since the beef is one of the sources of the fat content in fast food you are deluding yourself if you think it's contribution to the overall nutritional value of the meal is equivalent to the lettuce. Note that I never claimed it was entirely responsible only that it 'helped'. There are clearly lots of other bad things in fast food but the fat content of the processed beef is one.
Total cremation for everyone is very unlikely because of the huge amount of wood required. Even then it would leave a record with large amounts of ash created (you are burning everyone in an entire civilization!) plus the possibility to have fossilised, clean cut tree stumps. On top of this the fossil record of their ancestors should still exist, just like those of early hominids for humans.
Which is exactly why this study has the wrong conclusion. Thanks to all those tasty cows helping to cause an obesity epidemic in a few centuries, the largest land mammal will be humans, not cows.
Facebook said: “We do not allow adverts which are misleading or false on Facebook and have explained to Martin Lewis that he should report any adverts that infringe his rights and they will be removed.
I don't think Facebook quite understand what "allow" means. Clearly, they are allowing these ads to be distributed - if they were not there would not be a problem. Simply having a policay which says that you do not allow it and then going ahead and ignoring it until someone points it out seems very unlikely to cut it because it would make it far too easy for all major media organizations to avoid all libel.
Even if they do win the case, the law will be rapidly changed to make it impossible to win a similar case again. Politicians simply cannot afford to have media getting away with libellous content like this. It might be a financial expert getting libelled today but come the next general election it will be politicians and they know it.
We don't know for certain and any that you come up with can be dismissed by claiming that they did not develop that technology. However, there is one process which we know does preserve things for millions of years and which any intelligent civilization would have to leave behind: fossilized bones of the species who built it.
Apart from the lack of any evidence of fossilized graves there are no fossils of creatures with brains large enough to have the intelligence to make a civilization. So either they not only removed themselves but all their close ancestors from the entire fossil record or they had a radically different biology which allowed them to gain intelligence with a far smaller brain per body mass than any other animal. So the answer is clearly no because there is absolutely no fossil record to support it abd even things as simple as ant nests leave behind a fossil record.
Slashdot Mirror
As I've already said, sometimes it only takes a little bit to put a system out of balance....You can introduce perturbation up to a point and one tiny bit more and everything goes crazy. It's non-linear.
The keywords being "sometimes" and "up to a point". Your "logic" is that non-linear systems exist and they may have a breaking point, therefore, the climate must be a non-linear system that is close to its breaking point. You could have made the exact same argument back when the first humans tamed fire and argued that this man-made carbon was going push the climate past its tipping point. Several tens of thousands of years later and we know that this did not happen.
That's why you are wrong: your argument, when applied to a situation where we know the answer, gives the wrong answer, therefore, it's crap. The climate is not a simple system and using trivially simple logic arguments is not going to work. You need a data-based scientific approach and those who do that are certainly raising serious concerns about rising sea levels, ecological damage, droughts, floods etc. These are all extremely serious consequences but none of them has claimed that it will result in the extinction of life or similar doomsday scenarios.
The flip side of this is that US technology should not be trusted any more than Chinese technology.
Just imagine the outcry though if China had banned the sale of the iPhone giving the same reasons! These sort of national security type arguments are likely to end up backfiring on the US when other governments start to apply the same logic.
'Anally attentive' tends to have a very different meaning, but if you prefer that then to each his own I suppose! ;-)
So, those who prefer Apple products are more discerning? Is that what you are trying to say? Why, Thank You for the compliment!
No, I think "anally retentive" would be a more accurate summation, but you are welcome.
There are maybe 1500 volcanoes that are known to have been active in the past 10,000 years.
Yes, and if you have no idea what the average amount of CO2 emitted per eruption is plus the average frequency of eruptions then you have no way to know whether volcanoes out emit cars no matter how many cars there are or how frequently they are used. You might "feel" that 1.2 billion cars is enough to out emit volcanoes but if someone else feels it is not then whose feelings matter? The right answer is neither: what matters is the truth which you find by going out and measuring the relevant quantities you need to calculate the answer.
Logic without science is how you end up thinking that the Earth is flat.
One of the lakes specifically mentioned, Lake Geneva, is not only not pristine but there is no way that anyone could ever think it would be! It's a large lake with several large towns on the shore. Geneva in particular used to use the water in a factory (the original cause of the famous Jet d'eau) and it has ferries which criss-cross between the shore towns. This is not even close to being "pristine".
If there's something systemic that is preventing women from breaking into directing, that's potentially a huge pool of talent wasted.
True but the problem here is that having fewer women directors than men does not automatically mean that there is something systemic that needs to be fixed and even if there is something like this then this sort of bean-counting tells you absolutely nothing about what the problem is.
We need to move beyond simply counting the number of men and women in each profession and find out the reasons behind why there are more women in nursing or more men in directing etc. If it is due to sexism in the profession or industry then this has to be fixed but if it due to sexism at home e.g. women taking on more childcare responsibilities than men then forcing quotas, positive discrimination etc on those hiring will have no effect in addressing the problem and will cause a backlash because you are now adding unfairness to a something which, in this scenario, would be reasonably fair.
The social scientist is telling you that if you get people to believe that we have all royally fucked up, and that we have to change our behaviors now in order to keep this planet habitable for our kids and grandkids...
I mean really, have you ever stood behind a car and smelled the exhaust?....You don't even need climate change science to arrive at a logical conclusion
Have you ever stood next to a volcano? Seen a forest fire? etc. These are vastly more powerful than a car exhaust so if we are going to abandon science how are you going to show that a car exhausts damage the environment while erupting volcanoes, forest fires etc. do not? That's why you need science. For every example you can come up with there is an opposite just as "logical" counter example which is why logic is not going to help you. You need science to figure out what is actually going on.
No, it's exactly the same thing when you are talking about Apple fan boys. If any of them had noticed the tiniest change we would definitely have heard about it by now!
No, we can fight climate change by emitting less CO2. And that's the only way we can fight it.
That's simply not true. The best, long term solution is definitely to stop, or least reduce, CO2 emissions. However, we have a legacy of what we have already emitted and for the forseeable future we are still going to be emitting sizeable amounts of CO2. Hence, capturing and trapping the CO2 we have already emitted plus what we are going to emit is a very sensible way to fight climate change if we can do it.
What we should definitely NOT do is listen to a 86 year old social scientist making apocalyptic predictions which are unsupported by real science.
How do you KNOW it had no noticeable effect on User Experience?
Easy - no user has noticed an effect, therefore, there is no noticeable effect.
We are all genetically defective in one way or another. Problems usually only arise when two people with the same defects decide to have kids which is why we have laws against incest. With this one limitation self-selection of a mate works well - after all, it's how humans and all other species evolved.
Sounds like a plausible explanation of how you might break compatibility. However, given that the new protocol had no noticeable effect on the user experience - and given how quickly they reversed it probably no non-noticeable benefits either - that still suggests a dubious motivation for making it.
My guess is not all hardware is exactly identical in every way. Even those that are designed to be exact copies might have slight differences that cause malfunctions.
True but this was a working system. The displays used to work absolutely fine and then suddenly stopped after a software update which appeared to add no new features related to the display functionality. This was not a hardware malfunction. While it is possible to concoct scenarios where this sort of thing could happen entirely by accident you are beginning to stretch the bounds of probability. However, when you then include the fact that basically all 3rd part screens were affected for me that stretches probability beyond breaking point unless all the 3rd party screens were identical.
Yes, but that would generally mean that they would never have worked. This is a situation where a display worked absolutely fine and then suddenly stopped working after a software update. Clearly, the display could communicate at a hardware level.
This isn't helped at the university level where lots of liberal teachers preach that blue collar workers are nothing but a bunch of dumb hicks that are not smart enough to find something better.
Sorry but this is utterly wrong. First, at the university level you have professors, not teachers, and secondly, I have never once, nor heard any of my colleagues, ever disparage blue collar work. Indeed as researchers, we often work alongside those skilled in the trades because they have the skills we academics lack that are needed to build research equipment and apparatus. I would say that we view them as equals with a different, but just as useful, skillset than our own.
The other reason that you are wrong is that your logic fails to explain why high school leavers are avoiding the trades. Even if students encountered negative attitudes to the trades at University (which I strongly dispute) by this point they have already made their decision to go to University so it would have no appreciable effect on the numbers that choose to go to university vs the trades.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.
Very true, but I'm having an extremely hard time seeing how incompetence can adequately explain detecting and disabling non-apple displays.
maybe if Apple was really cracking down on 3rd party parts use they would have...
If they had done any of those things they would probably have ended up in serious trouble, perhaps not in the US but in the EU almost certainly. However with what happened they can accomplish the same goal without all the legal problems. Now everyone knows that non-apple repairs might be detected and disabled at any time in the future, entirely by "accident" of course, and while those "bugs" might be fixed you could be without a phone for a few weeks and who whats to chance that?
Of course it is entirely possible that this was as represented - a genuine bug - but it seems like a somewhat unlikely one to have occurred by accident. I'm also very suspicious of any "accident" where a company reaps significant financial benefit at the expense of competitors.
That's like claiming that a toy surprise is a reason for obesity because it is a key ingredient in happy meals.
If you are eating the toy surprise then I definitely agree that obesity is not your primary concern. However, since the beef is one of the sources of the fat content in fast food you are deluding yourself if you think it's contribution to the overall nutritional value of the meal is equivalent to the lettuce. Note that I never claimed it was entirely responsible only that it 'helped'. There are clearly lots of other bad things in fast food but the fat content of the processed beef is one.
My concern is that they'll train the AI using the bond films and then I'm going to be in trouble!
It's a key ingredient in many fast food meals.
Total cremation for everyone is very unlikely because of the huge amount of wood required. Even then it would leave a record with large amounts of ash created (you are burning everyone in an entire civilization!) plus the possibility to have fossilised, clean cut tree stumps. On top of this the fossil record of their ancestors should still exist, just like those of early hominids for humans.
Being tasty or useful to humans.
Which is exactly why this study has the wrong conclusion. Thanks to all those tasty cows helping to cause an obesity epidemic in a few centuries, the largest land mammal will be humans, not cows.
Facebook said: “We do not allow adverts which are misleading or false on Facebook and have explained to Martin Lewis that he should report any adverts that infringe his rights and they will be removed.
I don't think Facebook quite understand what "allow" means. Clearly, they are allowing these ads to be distributed - if they were not there would not be a problem. Simply having a policay which says that you do not allow it and then going ahead and ignoring it until someone points it out seems very unlikely to cut it because it would make it far too easy for all major media organizations to avoid all libel.
Even if they do win the case, the law will be rapidly changed to make it impossible to win a similar case again. Politicians simply cannot afford to have media getting away with libellous content like this. It might be a financial expert getting libelled today but come the next general election it will be politicians and they know it.
We don't know for certain and any that you come up with can be dismissed by claiming that they did not develop that technology. However, there is one process which we know does preserve things for millions of years and which any intelligent civilization would have to leave behind: fossilized bones of the species who built it.
Apart from the lack of any evidence of fossilized graves there are no fossils of creatures with brains large enough to have the intelligence to make a civilization. So either they not only removed themselves but all their close ancestors from the entire fossil record or they had a radically different biology which allowed them to gain intelligence with a far smaller brain per body mass than any other animal. So the answer is clearly no because there is absolutely no fossil record to support it abd even things as simple as ant nests leave behind a fossil record.