Are they all in it for the fame and fortune? Are they all paid off in some grand, global illuminati-style secret cabal to all tell the same alleged fabrications?
No. But they are in the star system of academia where the person with the most fame gets the most money and the fast track to tenure. Global warming is a huge waterfall of money into academia and anyone who wants an academic career will go with the flow or be drowned by colleagues.
Then they're in the wrong discipline. The real money is in chemical engineering.
Indeed. Climate was static for 300 million years before man started generating CO2. There were no rapid climate changes, no ice ages, no sudden warming spells. Ever.
Ah, the classic straw man, the other staple of the climate change denier.
Nowhere are climate scientists claiming that the earth's climate was static in the absence of anthropomorphic factors - the issue is that rate and magnitude of change brought on by the modification of the climate, not that scientists think that the earth's climate has been the same for the previous 4 billion years of its existence.
If we add up all the academics, postdocs and postgrads working in the fields of atmospheric science, oceanography, environmental science among others what does it come to?
Quite a lot, is the point.
Are they all in it for the fame and fortune? Are they all paid off in some grand, global illuminati-style secret cabal to all tell the same alleged fabrications?
Also, a scientist is qualified to talk about dodgy science - it doesn't take a specific niche researcher to be able to point out errors in denier arguments, especially with some experience in the field of science itself and familiarisation with the topic (as opposed to it being the main focus of your research).
The recorded interviews of the actual veterans he was with, excluding the ones who originally recommended him for medals in the past and then later mysteriously claimed he was a worthless soldier after joining a political attack group.
You can google those. They're all over the place.
The swift boat group has been pretty widely debunked by a large number of people for many years now, except on right wing "news" sites.
How does filing a lawsuit for defamation of character (even if misguided, since it's tricky to win a defamation suit and typically the press has freedom to say what it likes) affect the way he does science?
Oh right, discredit the Mann, not the argument. Of course, my mistake.
So what about that other thousands and thousands of scientists who also work in this area who agree with him and who aren't making lots of money (far, far from it)?
I assume they're all in it for the fame and fortune too, right?
They'll simply hand wave all that away as "natural effects" and play the appeal to common sense card by saying "how foolish to think that a man is big enough to affect something as big as the world" or "it snowed this christmas, so much for global warming!".
So now that the "truths" that you have tried to push earlier in the thread have been exposed as lies by established facts, you're going after him for service length that somehow discredits his military service.
Oh right, you're giving a textbook demonstration of swiftboating. Carry on.
What do you do when you have no leg to stand on? Ad hominem attacks!
"young boys, neckbeards, misogynists, etc"
How is it an ad hominem attack to call people who threaten to rape her to make her shut up, or call anyone who talks her about the media in anything but an oppressively critical light 'sacrificing integrity' anything but "immature young boys"? That's exactly what they are.
Put it this way, if they don't want to be called misogynistic, immature boys who are whining like bratty children when someone they don't like says something they disagree with then they should probably stop acting like it.
It's amazing how you boys are so willing to white knight for lying wenches.
Whether she lies or not (what lies exactly - or are you just talking about disagreeing with her stance or her talking points?), the response to her is not to threaten to rape her, or doxx her, or call anyone who does a piece that is not critical of her "sacrificing integrity".
She has some extreme leaps of logic among some actual points, but the reaction to her has been nothing but immature whining and outright obscene and unacceptable behaviour towards her and anyone else who brings up the topic. You're essentially making her point for her better than she ever could. It's a self fulfilling prophecy at this point.
Obvious bullshit is obvious. Without knowing who to credit (not necessarily where, but related) or how much you paid it's impossible to process the payment. Even bitcoin knows this information (although the identities are pseudonymised).
You clearly don't understand how Apple Pay works.
The combination of the phone's ID, your fingerprint hash and some other tokens generate a unique hash that is sent to the bank via the merchant terminal to authorise a payment. This check comes back as pass/fail, and if passed, the merchant terminal charges the card/account etc. At no point during this transaction does the phone (or Apple) know what the amount is, what the store is, or any of that information. All the Phone is doing is providing a key hash to the merchant who then talks to the bank.
This is why you need a participating bank/card issuer to use Apple Pay - the bank needs to be able to verify that hash came from you, and thus allow the charge to go through.
Apple exec Eddy Cue when introducing the service in September. 'So when you go to a physical business and use Apple Pay, Apple doesn't know what you bought, where you bought it, or how much you paid for it. The transaction is between you, the merchant, and your bank.
You should probably read the summary before thinking "off the top of your head".
Go to Target and buy some tin foil and make it into a hat. Put it on then make sure all of the gaps in your doors and windows are also stuffed with foil. You'll feel better.
The pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine nearly killed me when I was a child.
Take a look at vaccine adjuvants. Doctors are not scientists, they are business people, and use a lot of hocus-pocus for financial and other reasons. For a large part doctors and biologists have no clue what they are really doing.
No holistic/philosopical objections here, just pure science.
I'm curious - where's the "pure science" in your post? I must be missing it.
The iPod sync doesn't work that way. The library on the iPod is a mirror of the one on the computer. The computer is the master device, and if you make changes to the library on the iPod, they will not be kept unless they are also made on the master library.
this sounds like poor design. if there is a file that exists on my ipod but not desktop, itunes could figure out whether it's a new file, or a file that once existed on the desktop but has been deleted. coincidentally, this poor design benefits apple and harms third-party music sellers (and pirates. arrr).
It's a mirror of a master database. It's a design that has existed in computing times since backups have existed. People just don't read the dialog boxes before clicking ok.
Of course, if you put that third party music in iTunes then it will sync just fine, or you simply put the iPod in manual mode.
Since the release of the iPhone (so, 2007), iTunes now features the ability to copy back changes on the iDevice to the master library during a sync, but the original form of the software did not do this when it was in "auto" mode.
The were songs on computer. Purchased on iBook, then new hardware upgrade to a Mac mini no iNothin' device involved. Songs simply didn't transfer to the new hardware & OS X upgrade, were no longer in iTunes store even though they showed in purchase history but were unavailable for recovery/download. So I had to sneakerNET transfer them from my backup.
Ah, then I know what happened because that happened to me too, except it was during the change over to non-DRM tracks. I had purchased an album and it was showing as such, but I couldn't download the non-DRM versions of the songs for just that particular album because the album had a new ID/had a minor change or had some reason that it was no longer linked with the version for sale on the store.
Apple customer support simply gave me a copy of the "new" album despite it being the same and I carried on as before.
The library on the iPod is a mirror of the one on the computer. The computer is the master device, and if you make changes to the library on the iPod, they will not be kept unless they are also made on the master library.
That's typical for Apple, to assume the hardware is entirely their domain and wipe and delete it's contents and only restore what was installed with their 'approved' application.
What would we be saying if a Windows device did this?
Oh, this is apple.slashdot.org, though, not the real slashdot. Does apple pay for this domain or just have a half dozen fulltime employees stalking it as signed in slashdot users?
That you could turn it off, just like you can with Apple.
If you didn't want it to work this way, you could turn it off and sync manually. How do you think the people concerned got the tracks on there in the first place? The problem came if they subsequently used an automatic sync (without reading the message - it does tell you it will delete anything not in the main library [how very "vague"]) without adding those tracks to the main library on the computer.
Assuming it was a two way sync when in auto mode was the problem, but it's not a Machiavellian design, it's simply a database set up to mirror a master database *that was optional*.
You were not forced to use it in this mode.
Sheesh.
Also, the "opinions that disagree with me must be paid shills" stuff is getting old. It just makes you look silly. You think that anyone with a contrary opinion to yours, or one that is supportive of a company that you personally dislike is being paid? Just listen to yourself.
No, it's what happens if you leave the sync settings on auto and ignore the "there are files on this device that are not in your library, these will be deleted? Continue? [Cancel Sync] [Continue Sync]" dialog box.
Set the iPod to manual (or don't factory reset it without a backup) and the click bait goes away.
This entire thing boiled down to "I factory reset something and didn't have a backup. Wah! Apple deleted my stuff!"
What would you say to someone who formatted their device without a backup, expecting everything to still be on it afterwards?
Songs I bought didn't survive an iTunes ' upgrade'. So Apple removes content from iTunes and from your account " magically". I suspect they stopped paying an artist and sold copies anyway. Magic erased evidence on iTunes for Apple which propogated down to the client accounts!
BUT...to get my songs back off backup I paid a service fee of $122.00 to fire up an antiquated hard drive and copy...priceless
Songs from where? Songs that were on your iPod but not your computer? Or songs that were on your computer?
If it is the latter than I would be *very* interested to hear about what happened there.
When it was in auto sync mode it was a mirror of the iTunes library, but putting it in manual control mode allowed you to selectively sync from multiple different libraries and computers. It always worked this way.
It also warned you if it was going to delete anything, but most people (based on this lawsuit) seem to be incapable of reading dialog boxes.
That is what I read too. However, way back when I was stupid enough to buy an iPod (4th gen, IIRC), it simply 'synced' one way, deleting everything not put on there by iTunes without so much as a notification. I always figured this was normal behaviour from Apple so I simply never used iTunes (and soon after got a better mp3 player from a different vendor). Interesting to see this pop up now as an issue.
Not true.
A sync that involved deleting anything on the iPod that wouldn't stay after the sync was always accompanied by a warning message.
Whether you read or understood this message is entirely an exercise in the IQ of the user.
If auto-synch is left on, of course it erases the entire library and replaces it with your iTunes library.
Could you explain the logic of this to me? Using phrases like "of course" seems erroneous to me. If I was developing an application and all I had in mind was the end user, I would handle a sync just like I would handle any other sync: merge the two things you're syncing. When you sync your phone with your computer, does it delete everything and add only new content? No. It 'syncs' which should me a node A gets info from node B and vice versa. No deleting.
The iPod sync doesn't work that way. The library on the iPod is a mirror of the one on the computer. The computer is the master device, and if you make changes to the library on the iPod, they will not be kept unless they are also made on the master library.
When the iPod is synced, the master library is what is used to determine what is on there - it's purely a mirror of the computer, not a two way sync/merge. After the release of the iPhone (and other touchscreen iDevices) the option to consolidate tracks you had downloaded elsewhere was added as part of the sync process, but in the early days when it was designed to be used with a single master library when in full auto mode, it did not do this - it simply told you that it would delete the tracks if you selected "yes, delete the tracks and sync".
Where this would trip people up is if they would load music onto their iPod manually (manual control was always an option) on one computer, then later connected it up to a computer that had automatic sync set up (iTunes warns you if it will delete files, but who reads dialog boxes, eh?), and thus any changes made to the iPod are then lost.
Adding those "third party" tracks to iTunes and syncing them to the iPod worked as it always did, or if you wanted to run with multiple different iTunes libraries you just turned off the automatic sync and just manually controlled what iTunes would copy to your iPod.
Of course, that doesn't make for very click-baity headlines or nonsense lawsuits.
You are assuming too much, which just makes you look like an ass. It was pretty clear he was taking the piss out of Corning or just the upgrade treadmill in general. Now you're trying to justify your asshattery instead of admitting that you could be wrong.
I'm really not assuming too much at all.
Have you ever been on slashdot?
I mean, it's hard to tell how long you've been around so maybe you're not aware of the context here.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a difference between critical peer review and character assassination. The lawsuit alleges the latter, not the former.
No. But they are in the star system of academia where the person with the most fame gets the most money and the fast track to tenure. Global warming is a huge waterfall of money into academia and anyone who wants an academic career will go with the flow or be drowned by colleagues.
Then they're in the wrong discipline. The real money is in chemical engineering.
Indeed. Climate was static for 300 million years before man started generating CO2. There were no rapid climate changes, no ice ages, no sudden warming spells. Ever.
Ah, the classic straw man, the other staple of the climate change denier.
Nowhere are climate scientists claiming that the earth's climate was static in the absence of anthropomorphic factors - the issue is that rate and magnitude of change brought on by the modification of the climate, not that scientists think that the earth's climate has been the same for the previous 4 billion years of its existence.
If we add up all the academics, postdocs and postgrads working in the fields of atmospheric science, oceanography, environmental science among others what does it come to?
Quite a lot, is the point.
Are they all in it for the fame and fortune? Are they all paid off in some grand, global illuminati-style secret cabal to all tell the same alleged fabrications?
Also, a scientist is qualified to talk about dodgy science - it doesn't take a specific niche researcher to be able to point out errors in denier arguments, especially with some experience in the field of science itself and familiarisation with the topic (as opposed to it being the main focus of your research).
The recorded interviews of the actual veterans he was with, excluding the ones who originally recommended him for medals in the past and then later mysteriously claimed he was a worthless soldier after joining a political attack group.
You can google those. They're all over the place.
The swift boat group has been pretty widely debunked by a large number of people for many years now, except on right wing "news" sites.
How does filing a lawsuit for defamation of character (even if misguided, since it's tricky to win a defamation suit and typically the press has freedom to say what it likes) affect the way he does science?
Oh right, discredit the Mann, not the argument. Of course, my mistake.
So what about that other thousands and thousands of scientists who also work in this area who agree with him and who aren't making lots of money (far, far from it)?
I assume they're all in it for the fame and fortune too, right?
They'll simply hand wave all that away as "natural effects" and play the appeal to common sense card by saying "how foolish to think that a man is big enough to affect something as big as the world" or "it snowed this christmas, so much for global warming!".
Man, you have a serious axe to grind against him.
So now that the "truths" that you have tried to push earlier in the thread have been exposed as lies by established facts, you're going after him for service length that somehow discredits his military service.
Oh right, you're giving a textbook demonstration of swiftboating. Carry on.
What do you do when you have no leg to stand on? Ad hominem attacks!
"young boys, neckbeards, misogynists, etc"
How is it an ad hominem attack to call people who threaten to rape her to make her shut up, or call anyone who talks her about the media in anything but an oppressively critical light 'sacrificing integrity' anything but "immature young boys"? That's exactly what they are.
Put it this way, if they don't want to be called misogynistic, immature boys who are whining like bratty children when someone they don't like says something they disagree with then they should probably stop acting like it.
It's amazing how you boys are so willing to white knight for lying wenches.
Whether she lies or not (what lies exactly - or are you just talking about disagreeing with her stance or her talking points?), the response to her is not to threaten to rape her, or doxx her, or call anyone who does a piece that is not critical of her "sacrificing integrity".
She has some extreme leaps of logic among some actual points, but the reaction to her has been nothing but immature whining and outright obscene and unacceptable behaviour towards her and anyone else who brings up the topic. You're essentially making her point for her better than she ever could. It's a self fulfilling prophecy at this point.
Obvious bullshit is obvious. Without knowing who to credit (not necessarily where, but related) or how much you paid it's impossible to process the payment. Even bitcoin knows this information (although the identities are pseudonymised).
You clearly don't understand how Apple Pay works.
The combination of the phone's ID, your fingerprint hash and some other tokens generate a unique hash that is sent to the bank via the merchant terminal to authorise a payment. This check comes back as pass/fail, and if passed, the merchant terminal charges the card/account etc. At no point during this transaction does the phone (or Apple) know what the amount is, what the store is, or any of that information. All the Phone is doing is providing a key hash to the merchant who then talks to the bank.
This is why you need a participating bank/card issuer to use Apple Pay - the bank needs to be able to verify that hash came from you, and thus allow the charge to go through.
Apple exec Eddy Cue when introducing the service in September. 'So when you go to a physical business and use Apple Pay, Apple doesn't know what you bought, where you bought it, or how much you paid for it. The transaction is between you, the merchant, and your bank.
You should probably read the summary before thinking "off the top of your head".
It is amazing how threatened you young boys are by that woman. I guess it shows just how effective she is at what she does.
Holy shit.
Go to Target and buy some tin foil and make it into a hat. Put it on then make sure all of the gaps in your doors and windows are also stuffed with foil. You'll feel better.
The pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine nearly killed me when I was a child.
Take a look at vaccine adjuvants. Doctors are not scientists, they are business people, and use a lot of hocus-pocus for financial and other reasons. For a large part doctors and biologists have no clue what they are really doing.
No holistic/philosopical objections here, just pure science.
I'm curious - where's the "pure science" in your post? I must be missing it.
The iPod sync doesn't work that way. The library on the iPod is a mirror of the one on the computer. The computer is the master device, and if you make changes to the library on the iPod, they will not be kept unless they are also made on the master library.
this sounds like poor design. if there is a file that exists on my ipod but not desktop, itunes could figure out whether it's a new file, or a file that once existed on the desktop but has been deleted. coincidentally, this poor design benefits apple and harms third-party music sellers (and pirates. arrr).
It's a mirror of a master database. It's a design that has existed in computing times since backups have existed. People just don't read the dialog boxes before clicking ok.
Of course, if you put that third party music in iTunes then it will sync just fine, or you simply put the iPod in manual mode.
Since the release of the iPhone (so, 2007), iTunes now features the ability to copy back changes on the iDevice to the master library during a sync, but the original form of the software did not do this when it was in "auto" mode.
The were songs on computer. Purchased on iBook, then new hardware upgrade to a Mac mini no iNothin' device involved. Songs simply didn't transfer to the new hardware & OS X upgrade, were no longer in iTunes store even though they showed in purchase history but were unavailable for recovery/download. So I had to sneakerNET transfer them from my backup.
Ah, then I know what happened because that happened to me too, except it was during the change over to non-DRM tracks. I had purchased an album and it was showing as such, but I couldn't download the non-DRM versions of the songs for just that particular album because the album had a new ID/had a minor change or had some reason that it was no longer linked with the version for sale on the store.
Apple customer support simply gave me a copy of the "new" album despite it being the same and I carried on as before.
The library on the iPod is a mirror of the one on the computer. The computer is the master device, and if you make changes to the library on the iPod, they will not be kept unless they are also made on the master library.
That's typical for Apple, to assume the hardware is entirely their domain and wipe and delete it's contents and only restore what was installed with their 'approved' application.
What would we be saying if a Windows device did this?
Oh, this is apple.slashdot.org, though, not the real slashdot. Does apple pay for this domain or just have a half dozen fulltime employees stalking it as signed in slashdot users?
That you could turn it off, just like you can with Apple.
If you didn't want it to work this way, you could turn it off and sync manually. How do you think the people concerned got the tracks on there in the first place? The problem came if they subsequently used an automatic sync (without reading the message - it does tell you it will delete anything not in the main library [how very "vague"]) without adding those tracks to the main library on the computer.
Assuming it was a two way sync when in auto mode was the problem, but it's not a Machiavellian design, it's simply a database set up to mirror a master database *that was optional*.
You were not forced to use it in this mode.
Sheesh.
Also, the "opinions that disagree with me must be paid shills" stuff is getting old. It just makes you look silly. You think that anyone with a contrary opinion to yours, or one that is supportive of a company that you personally dislike is being paid? Just listen to yourself.
No, it's what happens if you leave the sync settings on auto and ignore the "there are files on this device that are not in your library, these will be deleted? Continue? [Cancel Sync] [Continue Sync]" dialog box.
Set the iPod to manual (or don't factory reset it without a backup) and the click bait goes away.
This entire thing boiled down to "I factory reset something and didn't have a backup. Wah! Apple deleted my stuff!"
What would you say to someone who formatted their device without a backup, expecting everything to still be on it afterwards?
Songs I bought didn't survive an iTunes ' upgrade'. So Apple removes content from iTunes and from your account " magically". I suspect they stopped paying an artist and sold copies anyway. Magic erased evidence on iTunes for Apple which propogated down to the client accounts!
BUT...to get my songs back off backup I paid a service fee of $122.00 to fire up an antiquated hard drive and copy...priceless
Songs from where? Songs that were on your iPod but not your computer? Or songs that were on your computer?
If it is the latter than I would be *very* interested to hear about what happened there.
You just put it in manual mode. Problem solved.
When it was in auto sync mode it was a mirror of the iTunes library, but putting it in manual control mode allowed you to selectively sync from multiple different libraries and computers. It always worked this way.
It also warned you if it was going to delete anything, but most people (based on this lawsuit) seem to be incapable of reading dialog boxes.
That is what I read too. However, way back when I was stupid enough to buy an iPod (4th gen, IIRC), it simply 'synced' one way, deleting everything not put on there by iTunes without so much as a notification. I always figured this was normal behaviour from Apple so I simply never used iTunes (and soon after got a better mp3 player from a different vendor). Interesting to see this pop up now as an issue.
Not true.
A sync that involved deleting anything on the iPod that wouldn't stay after the sync was always accompanied by a warning message.
Whether you read or understood this message is entirely an exercise in the IQ of the user.
If auto-synch is left on, of course it erases the entire library and replaces it with your iTunes library.
Could you explain the logic of this to me? Using phrases like "of course" seems erroneous to me. If I was developing an application and all I had in mind was the end user, I would handle a sync just like I would handle any other sync: merge the two things you're syncing. When you sync your phone with your computer, does it delete everything and add only new content? No. It 'syncs' which should me a node A gets info from node B and vice versa. No deleting.
The iPod sync doesn't work that way. The library on the iPod is a mirror of the one on the computer. The computer is the master device, and if you make changes to the library on the iPod, they will not be kept unless they are also made on the master library.
When the iPod is synced, the master library is what is used to determine what is on there - it's purely a mirror of the computer, not a two way sync/merge. After the release of the iPhone (and other touchscreen iDevices) the option to consolidate tracks you had downloaded elsewhere was added as part of the sync process, but in the early days when it was designed to be used with a single master library when in full auto mode, it did not do this - it simply told you that it would delete the tracks if you selected "yes, delete the tracks and sync".
Where this would trip people up is if they would load music onto their iPod manually (manual control was always an option) on one computer, then later connected it up to a computer that had automatic sync set up (iTunes warns you if it will delete files, but who reads dialog boxes, eh?), and thus any changes made to the iPod are then lost.
Adding those "third party" tracks to iTunes and syncing them to the iPod worked as it always did, or if you wanted to run with multiple different iTunes libraries you just turned off the automatic sync and just manually controlled what iTunes would copy to your iPod.
Of course, that doesn't make for very click-baity headlines or nonsense lawsuits.
You are assuming too much, which just makes you look like an ass. It was pretty clear he was taking the piss out of Corning or just the upgrade treadmill in general. Now you're trying to justify your asshattery instead of admitting that you could be wrong.
I'm really not assuming too much at all.
Have you ever been on slashdot?
I mean, it's hard to tell how long you've been around so maybe you're not aware of the context here.