Considering that the anti-Apple folk were dancing in the streets over the white version being announced at launch and not shipped due to technical problems, I guess people thought you'd all want to know about it - the number of "so when's the white one coming out? lolcats!" posts suggested that this story was much anticipated.
This is why Blizzard has an enormously long disclaimer about the specific meanings of words in its press releases like "planning" and "expected" and "soon (tm)".
If there's going to be a "lolz wherez the whyte one!" troll post in iPhone articles don;t be surprised when there's a story about it when it does ship.
You foolishly assume that everywhere in the world is like the USA with stone age cellular networks.
Don't worry, it's a common mistake, but there are countries outside of the US with decent networks. Some of them you aren't even invading for petroleum distillate.
Hilarious. You're blaming your skim-reading of my post on me.
I caught you out looking stupid and you're trying to blame it on the way I phrased it. Here's the full quote from my original post, exactly as it appears (including my semicolon typo):
Are we holding the science "to a lesser standard" in the conclusion that tetraethyl lead is bad for the environment because we don;t have "centuries" of data to back up the conclusions we came to?
If you are arguing that "CFCs destroy the ozone layer and were responsible for the antarctic ozone hole" is a bad or weak conclusion because we don't have centuries of data, then so is the idea that TEL is bad for the environment.
It is mentioned in the sentence before, in context. I could have specifically added "TEL" after the name, but I was assuming some minor knowledge of the 20th century and atmospheric science since you have seen fit to argue against me regarding ozone and CFCs. It's hardly a stretch to TEL from there.
Put it this way, the fact that you felt the need to post it as a sarcastic question makes it read the same way as someone on slashdot asking what the acronym "RAM" stands for in a discussion about computer specs. If you are going to argue with me in some detail about catalytic ozone depletion, especially from a counterargument standpoint in opposition of the established viewpoint that the ozone hole is anthropogenic, then there are some basic terms I'm going to assume knowledge of.
Even if the term is unfamiliar to you, about 5 seconds with google and/or wiki will tell you what it means. It's the top hit in the disambiguation page for "TEL", for example. The fact that I wrote it out in full in the previous sentence is just bonus.
Regarding "long term monitoring" - it is *extremely unlikely* that the high levels of ozone depletion in the 80s were down to a natural process that occurred right as CFCs were invented and that has mysteriously vanished at the same time that CFCs were phased out. Now, slashdot is the king of the "correlation is not causation" quote, but in this instance there was *a lot* of science carried out that definitively proved that CFCs were the cause.
If you have evidence to the contrary, or you have a theory on a reaction pathway for ozone depletion that can explain the levels seen since the 80s then scientists are more than willing to listen, model and experimentally test. This is how the Chapman Cycle was created, after the original ozone model was producing about 5 times too much ozone compared with empirical data. It was theorised, tested, then measured and added to the model, with the results matching the real data. This is how the models work. The stratosphere is *extensively* studied - if you believe there is something that an entire field of chemists is missing, they will be more than willing to listen. They love performing experiments.
You've just changed your tune - before you were lumping this all together with "climatology" and the big conspiracy and the "hoax" of global warming and how it is all so "convenient and profitable" that the science goes a particular way. My "not really" was in reply to your assertion that it was profitable for companies to sell alternatives to CFCs when in reality their profits remained unchanged - they were just selling different compounds, negating the thinly-veiled "the only reason it happened was due to a corporate profits".
So you "see a natural process like water flowing downhill". Yes, there are natural processes for the destruction of ozone. These are well understood.
What was not understood at the time was the way CFCs and brominated analogues would do regarding ozone destruction. Of *course* the Montreal Protocol was because of the science - why else would it be there? The whole purpose was the discussion of how CFCs were damaging the atmosphere. It was hardly a grand master plan by chemical companies who made them to say "we'll fake up some story about how CFCs are damaging so we instead have to search for alternative compounds".
You also seem to think that only satellite data was used to monitor the ozone layer. I have to wonder if you understand exactly how ozone concentration is measured, which does include satellites, but also a number of other methods too.
Like I said, just because it's not a data set going back "centuries" doesn't mean that the science and conclusions drawn are invalid when the results are as easily testable and repeatable as these are. You don't need to wait for 50 years worth of data when the results are blatantly obvious and can stand up to easy repeat testing and analysis. No one was in any doubt about what CFCs were doing.
Ah, proof you're not reading my posts carefully. I wrote out the full name for TEL (tetraethyl lead - [Et4 Pb]) in the same post you quoted from, but you clearly didn't read that.
However, given your supposed knowledge of this whole climate thing, I assumed you'd know about one of the most famous airborne pollutants of the 20th century, especially since I mentioned it by name in the same post.
Anyway, you ask:
How do you know that human-induced ozone depletion has been observed rather than we just happened to start looking when a nonhuman cause sparked some degree of ozone depletion? Observation bias and confirmation bias are the sharks in this tank.
Which is a common tactic in the "muddy the science" waters when it comes to the atmosphere. Observation bias is a concern, which is why extensive computer modelling is employed to look at what happens when you change things, and extensive physical modelling in very large atmosphere simulation experiments (generally huge transparent domes with controlled/monitored conditions inside) so you can vary things and see what happens.
If the ozone depletion was independent of CFC concentration this would have been seen long before these experiments. You can demonstrate it in the lab quite easily and observe the results. Comparing to actual measurements in the atmosphere, they correlate very well. It's not even like it can be put down to a natural source - CFCs are 100% anthropogenic.
There *are* natural processes that destroy ozone in the stratosphere that are also well understood, and they are more effective at the poles due to the way the global weather/climate works that concentrates and "traps" things at the poles seasonally, but these processes (both modelled and observed directly) cannot account for the hole in the ozone layer. The fact that the hole is now reducing gradually in the wake of the CFC ban, in line with models for the predicted lifetimes of CFCs in the atmosphere (they last a long time), is further evidence that we were right.
It's not like it's based on any prediction - it's an easily observable series of chemical reactions that form catalytic loss cycles - it's no surprise that putting them in the atmosphere, even in low concentrations, caused a much increased ozone depletion rate that could not be accounted for by natural loss cycles alone. However, given your foolish question, I doubt you've actually read my post, just as you didn't before.
Not really - it was the same as before. While previously CFCs were being used, now some of those roles are filled by HCFCs, which are just as bad as CFCs in the upper atmosphere but break down much more effectively before they reach the stratosphere and so have a much lower impact.
Other areas where they were used heavily, for example in fridges and AC systems, they simply switched back to using things like propane. How very "profitable".
You are desperate to look for some conspiracy here, but there isn't one. CFCs were invented, looked to be excellent (non toxic, non-flammable, non-smelly, inert) so we started using them in vast quantities until we discovered they catalytically destroyed ozone, so we looked for alternatives - some old (propane), some new (HCFCs), among other things.
Who said I'm a climatologist, or that I did it? I use "we" to refer to scientists as a whole, and if you're going to simply dismiss their methodologies and results out of hand because its fashionable to hate climate science right now then I really don't think we have much to discuss.
We don't need centuries of data to determine how CFCs interact with ozone - we can see it very clearly on a timescale of years, both in the actual atmosphere, in models (that are calculated completely separately from the atmosphere yet accurately reproduce what has been observed), and in smog tanks and lab settings.
There's no "controversy" or "bad science" going on just because it relates to the atmosphere, and in fact a great deal of the CFC research took place before special interests started their propaganda war against climate science.
The science behind the interaction of CFCs with ozone isn;t even as esoteric as climate change science. It is something you can observe directly in the lab - put a low concentration of any particular CFC into a tank with some ozone, expose it to UV light and watch what happens to the ozone concentration. Do the same thing in a tank that only has ozone in it (UV light also photodissociates ozone itself, so you can compare with the control experiment).
Set this up in a large "atmosphere simulator" like the huge one in Spain and run the experiment for months under the same conditions that you find in the atmosphere.
Run some reactions and work out the reaction order, the kinetics and the pathway of all the reactions that occur (including the natural ones, like the formation and photodissociation of ozone etc) and plug this reaction data into a computer and ask it what will happen over a 10 year period. Don;t tell it anything about the atmosphere other than the starting concentrations of the species and see hot it compares to 10 years worth of measured results. Ask it what will happen if CFC concentrations are reduced. Ask it what happens if they are not.
There is a reason that the Montreal Protocol happened in the late 80s, when the science as presented was compelling enough to force a change in the way we manufacture and use catalytic ozone depleting compounds.
The same would have been true for CO2, but by the time the science was compelling there was too much money in opposing what the science was trying to say.
The idea that it's "holding to a lesser standard" that you can't produce centuries of data because the compounds haven't existed for that long is laughable. Are we holding the science "to a lesser standard" in the conclusion that tetraethyl lead is bad for the environment because we don;t have "centuries" of data to back up the conclusions we came to?
If you are arguing that "CFCs destroy the ozone layer and were responsible for the antarctic ozone hole" is a bad or weak conclusion because we don't have centuries of data, then so is the idea that TEL is bad for the environment.
You don't, but Apple have said (not just Jobs in this statement, but in developer workshops at WWDC in the past) that it is not collected, and what it is used for - A-GPS. Short of never believing anyone, at some point you have to assume non-malice and that he is telling the truth, even if you are skeptical. So far even the "sky is falling" people who have 'discovered' this 'secret' information have yet to say that it is being sent to Apple - from the nature of the data it is looking very likely that it is useful to the phone itself, and of limited use to Apple. Short of someone definitively proving otherwise, you have to at some point say "ok, they have said it's not being collected", in the same way that you have to trust Google is not keeping logs forever of each Android handset that reports its data.
So the reason the cache exists is to make the A-GPS work more quickly, especially for things like tagging your photos (if you have that feature turned on) - imagine how long that would take, and how much battery it would waste, if the phone had to fire up the GPS chip and use a cold-locate every time to work out where the phone is, compared to looking at the cache file first and working out roughly where it is, making an accurate GPS lock much quicker and for much less battery.
That is why the file exists, among many other location-aware activities on the phone (quicker lock in google maps, etc), not some wild conspiracy that "Apple is tracking your every move"
They didn't - that quote was from 2010, reposted with deliberate deception by a blog/slashdot troll summary to make it look current to generate some quick ad revenue from page hits.
With all due respect, you know very little about the workload of a teacher or the stress of the job.
Especially putting scare quotes around "planning period".
It's so easy to claim "they get 3 months off in the summer! unlike everyone else who works!" or "they don't work a full day!" (hahahahahahaha, oh wait you were saying that seriously, let me laugh even harder HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH).
I am not a teacher, but I know several - two of whom are close family members, and I can assure you they are not cruising along living the life of riley with luxurious long vacations or "not working a full day". They are overworked and underpaid, and critically not given the respect they deserve because they a criticised for having an "easy life and yet still complaining" by people who have no fucking idea.
Why would we have "centuries" of data on how CFCs interact with the ozone layer - they are man-made compounds that simply do not exist in nature without an anthropogenic source, and we didn't start using them until their invention as a replacement for H2S and NH3 in refrigeration systems and as a replacement for flammable blowing agents and aerosols. We were already studying the atmosphere before, during and after the cut down of CFCs. They are virtually inert compounds, which we thought was fantastic (they don;t burn or react in the environment), but their catalytic destruction of ozone in the presence of UV was not understood until they started getting concentrated over the pole.
The models were designed based on empirical evidence of how these species react - looking at reaction rates, profiles, activation energy, temperature dependence, reaction order etc, and the products that form in these reactions then asking a computer "hey what would happen if we had x concentration of y species in the atmosphere" and comparing it to real world measurements. It wasn't designed to "fit what we saw" or "fit out preconceptions". We looked at the chemistry and asked the computer to work out what would happen and, hey, it happens to match what was being observed in the atmosphere. We didn't tell the computer "make the model look like the atmosphere so we can say it was CFCs"
It's not like the model was fitted to the data and we declared it solved. In the wake of the CFC ban the ozone cover has been recovering, exactly as modelled and expected. It will be some years before it was back to the way it was before, since the species are very long lived in the atmosphere by their very nature.
Quite often the model doesn't predict what you expect, due to some missing piece of the puzzle (for example, the development of the Chapman Cycle as a way to explain the observed concentration of ozone in the atmosphere when the models predicted it to be about 5 times too high.
Most of these new CFLs make people sick and diseased by emitting radio frequency radiation that contributes to dirty electricity, that can cause diabetes, cancer, cardiac problems, low or high blood pressure, sinusitis, bronchitis, pneumonia, asthma, migraines, dizziness, nausea, confusion, fatigue, digestive problems, enlarged thyroid, testicular/ovarian pain, internal bleeding; altered sugar metabolism, immune abnormalities; redistribution of metals within the bodyskin irritations, eye strain and many other ailments.
So, I'm assuming you also believe that WiFi base stations make people sick too?
Quack sites really aren't go-to places for definitive evidence.
You mean like those "station wagons" (we call them estates) and MPVs in Europe that already get considerably higher mpg figures than the lazy, uninspired US models, even after you divide by 1.2 to take account of the difference in size between the US and English gallon.
Don't blame the CAFE standards for the rise of the SUV, blame the loophole that allowed them to be built in the first place (putting profit before safety).
There was no reason you can't have powerful, efficient station wagons and MPVs - we have them in Europe and have had them for at least two decades. My father drives a 150bhp minivan that gets nearly 60mpg (50mpg US figure) and that's with all his engineering tools in the back. It does 0-60 in 9 seconds (a figure that a US commenter on/. put down as a decent figure for a US family car that a European car "would not be able to match"). It's also fun to drive.
My own car is French, so clearly wouldn't last 5 minutes on sale in the land of Freedom Fries (tm), but gets 55mpg (45.8mpg US figure) and can comfortably seat 5 with a huge load of luggage in the boot.
This technology wasn't alien to the US automakers, but at the time they were lobbying the government that they simply wouldn't be able to afford to make a car in 4 years that got the same gas mileage as legally mandated in China at the current time when they were already exceeding it in the European market. Ford's Euro offerings, for example, are one of the hilariously weird decisions of an industry that required a massive government bailout - here in the UK Ford makes some genuinely good cars, two or three of which are class leading models and have been for years. They also make some extremely efficient and powerful engines that are far ahead of anything they are offering in the US.
Blame it on regulation and laziness and effective lobbying and purchasing of congressmen and senators, don't blame it on the mandating of more efficient cars.
You can do an experiment that demonstrates how CFCs and HCFCs catalytically destroy ozone, and build computer models of the way the atmosphere works to show why we ended up with a specific "hole" over the pole rather than simply a weakened ozone layer all over.
There's really no doubt in this. Your bold assertion that
There's little evidence that human CFCs had any effect on the Antarctica hole, for example. The hole might have always been there, but we didn't see it until we looked.
is just laughable. So, first you say there's little evidence we had anything to do with it (without actually looking at any of the vast, vast amounts of data and tested hypotheses and models, and the resulting changes to the ozone layer in the years since), then say "it might" in the next sentence and expect your first one to be taken seriously!
Yes, we "might" not have had anything to do with it - that's why we *went and tested it out* to find the cause.
And 200 years ago you couldn't sit at home and write words into a magic electrical box so that other people with magic electrical boxes could read them on the other side of the word in near real time.
In the UK about half of all consumer cars are diesel, right down to tiny little hatchbacks with 7 gallon tanks.
Truck pumps are also usually separate, since it allows them easier access and exit from the station, and often with no overhead cover so no worry about height issues.
Certainly if it *was* a flow rate issue it has just been grandfathered in here.
Slashdot Mirror
Considering that the anti-Apple folk were dancing in the streets over the white version being announced at launch and not shipped due to technical problems, I guess people thought you'd all want to know about it - the number of "so when's the white one coming out? lolcats!" posts suggested that this story was much anticipated.
This is why Blizzard has an enormously long disclaimer about the specific meanings of words in its press releases like "planning" and "expected" and "soon (tm)".
If there's going to be a "lolz wherez the whyte one!" troll post in iPhone articles don;t be surprised when there's a story about it when it does ship.
You can get your iPhone carrier unlocked here in the UK at the end of your contract, or you can start with an unlocked one for full price.
You foolishly assume that everywhere in the world is like the USA with stone age cellular networks.
Don't worry, it's a common mistake, but there are countries outside of the US with decent networks. Some of them you aren't even invading for petroleum distillate.
Hilarious. You're blaming your skim-reading of my post on me.
I caught you out looking stupid and you're trying to blame it on the way I phrased it. Here's the full quote from my original post, exactly as it appears (including my semicolon typo):
Are we holding the science "to a lesser standard" in the conclusion that tetraethyl lead is bad for the environment because we don;t have "centuries" of data to back up the conclusions we came to?
If you are arguing that "CFCs destroy the ozone layer and were responsible for the antarctic ozone hole" is a bad or weak conclusion because we don't have centuries of data, then so is the idea that TEL is bad for the environment.
It is mentioned in the sentence before, in context. I could have specifically added "TEL" after the name, but I was assuming some minor knowledge of the 20th century and atmospheric science since you have seen fit to argue against me regarding ozone and CFCs. It's hardly a stretch to TEL from there.
Put it this way, the fact that you felt the need to post it as a sarcastic question makes it read the same way as someone on slashdot asking what the acronym "RAM" stands for in a discussion about computer specs. If you are going to argue with me in some detail about catalytic ozone depletion, especially from a counterargument standpoint in opposition of the established viewpoint that the ozone hole is anthropogenic, then there are some basic terms I'm going to assume knowledge of.
Even if the term is unfamiliar to you, about 5 seconds with google and/or wiki will tell you what it means. It's the top hit in the disambiguation page for "TEL", for example. The fact that I wrote it out in full in the previous sentence is just bonus.
Regarding "long term monitoring" - it is *extremely unlikely* that the high levels of ozone depletion in the 80s were down to a natural process that occurred right as CFCs were invented and that has mysteriously vanished at the same time that CFCs were phased out. Now, slashdot is the king of the "correlation is not causation" quote, but in this instance there was *a lot* of science carried out that definitively proved that CFCs were the cause.
If you have evidence to the contrary, or you have a theory on a reaction pathway for ozone depletion that can explain the levels seen since the 80s then scientists are more than willing to listen, model and experimentally test. This is how the Chapman Cycle was created, after the original ozone model was producing about 5 times too much ozone compared with empirical data. It was theorised, tested, then measured and added to the model, with the results matching the real data. This is how the models work. The stratosphere is *extensively* studied - if you believe there is something that an entire field of chemists is missing, they will be more than willing to listen. They love performing experiments.
You've just changed your tune - before you were lumping this all together with "climatology" and the big conspiracy and the "hoax" of global warming and how it is all so "convenient and profitable" that the science goes a particular way. My "not really" was in reply to your assertion that it was profitable for companies to sell alternatives to CFCs when in reality their profits remained unchanged - they were just selling different compounds, negating the thinly-veiled "the only reason it happened was due to a corporate profits".
So you "see a natural process like water flowing downhill". Yes, there are natural processes for the destruction of ozone. These are well understood.
What was not understood at the time was the way CFCs and brominated analogues would do regarding ozone destruction. Of *course* the Montreal Protocol was because of the science - why else would it be there? The whole purpose was the discussion of how CFCs were damaging the atmosphere. It was hardly a grand master plan by chemical companies who made them to say "we'll fake up some story about how CFCs are damaging so we instead have to search for alternative compounds".
You also seem to think that only satellite data was used to monitor the ozone layer. I have to wonder if you understand exactly how ozone concentration is measured, which does include satellites, but also a number of other methods too.
Like I said, just because it's not a data set going back "centuries" doesn't mean that the science and conclusions drawn are invalid when the results are as easily testable and repeatable as these are. You don't need to wait for 50 years worth of data when the results are blatantly obvious and can stand up to easy repeat testing and analysis. No one was in any doubt about what CFCs were doing.
Ah, proof you're not reading my posts carefully. I wrote out the full name for TEL (tetraethyl lead - [Et4 Pb]) in the same post you quoted from, but you clearly didn't read that.
However, given your supposed knowledge of this whole climate thing, I assumed you'd know about one of the most famous airborne pollutants of the 20th century, especially since I mentioned it by name in the same post.
Anyway, you ask:
How do you know that human-induced ozone depletion has been observed rather than we just happened to start looking when a nonhuman cause sparked some degree of ozone depletion? Observation bias and confirmation bias are the sharks in this tank.
Which is a common tactic in the "muddy the science" waters when it comes to the atmosphere. Observation bias is a concern, which is why extensive computer modelling is employed to look at what happens when you change things, and extensive physical modelling in very large atmosphere simulation experiments (generally huge transparent domes with controlled/monitored conditions inside) so you can vary things and see what happens.
If the ozone depletion was independent of CFC concentration this would have been seen long before these experiments. You can demonstrate it in the lab quite easily and observe the results. Comparing to actual measurements in the atmosphere, they correlate very well. It's not even like it can be put down to a natural source - CFCs are 100% anthropogenic.
There *are* natural processes that destroy ozone in the stratosphere that are also well understood, and they are more effective at the poles due to the way the global weather/climate works that concentrates and "traps" things at the poles seasonally, but these processes (both modelled and observed directly) cannot account for the hole in the ozone layer. The fact that the hole is now reducing gradually in the wake of the CFC ban, in line with models for the predicted lifetimes of CFCs in the atmosphere (they last a long time), is further evidence that we were right.
It's not like it's based on any prediction - it's an easily observable series of chemical reactions that form catalytic loss cycles - it's no surprise that putting them in the atmosphere, even in low concentrations, caused a much increased ozone depletion rate that could not be accounted for by natural loss cycles alone. However, given your foolish question, I doubt you've actually read my post, just as you didn't before.
Not really - it was the same as before. While previously CFCs were being used, now some of those roles are filled by HCFCs, which are just as bad as CFCs in the upper atmosphere but break down much more effectively before they reach the stratosphere and so have a much lower impact.
Other areas where they were used heavily, for example in fridges and AC systems, they simply switched back to using things like propane. How very "profitable".
You are desperate to look for some conspiracy here, but there isn't one. CFCs were invented, looked to be excellent (non toxic, non-flammable, non-smelly, inert) so we started using them in vast quantities until we discovered they catalytically destroyed ozone, so we looked for alternatives - some old (propane), some new (HCFCs), among other things.
Who said I'm a climatologist, or that I did it? I use "we" to refer to scientists as a whole, and if you're going to simply dismiss their methodologies and results out of hand because its fashionable to hate climate science right now then I really don't think we have much to discuss.
We don't need centuries of data to determine how CFCs interact with ozone - we can see it very clearly on a timescale of years, both in the actual atmosphere, in models (that are calculated completely separately from the atmosphere yet accurately reproduce what has been observed), and in smog tanks and lab settings.
There's no "controversy" or "bad science" going on just because it relates to the atmosphere, and in fact a great deal of the CFC research took place before special interests started their propaganda war against climate science.
The science behind the interaction of CFCs with ozone isn;t even as esoteric as climate change science. It is something you can observe directly in the lab - put a low concentration of any particular CFC into a tank with some ozone, expose it to UV light and watch what happens to the ozone concentration. Do the same thing in a tank that only has ozone in it (UV light also photodissociates ozone itself, so you can compare with the control experiment).
Set this up in a large "atmosphere simulator" like the huge one in Spain and run the experiment for months under the same conditions that you find in the atmosphere.
Run some reactions and work out the reaction order, the kinetics and the pathway of all the reactions that occur (including the natural ones, like the formation and photodissociation of ozone etc) and plug this reaction data into a computer and ask it what will happen over a 10 year period. Don;t tell it anything about the atmosphere other than the starting concentrations of the species and see hot it compares to 10 years worth of measured results. Ask it what will happen if CFC concentrations are reduced. Ask it what happens if they are not.
There is a reason that the Montreal Protocol happened in the late 80s, when the science as presented was compelling enough to force a change in the way we manufacture and use catalytic ozone depleting compounds.
The same would have been true for CO2, but by the time the science was compelling there was too much money in opposing what the science was trying to say.
The idea that it's "holding to a lesser standard" that you can't produce centuries of data because the compounds haven't existed for that long is laughable. Are we holding the science "to a lesser standard" in the conclusion that tetraethyl lead is bad for the environment because we don;t have "centuries" of data to back up the conclusions we came to?
If you are arguing that "CFCs destroy the ozone layer and were responsible for the antarctic ozone hole" is a bad or weak conclusion because we don't have centuries of data, then so is the idea that TEL is bad for the environment.
Like I said, trolling.
Well played sir.
You had everyone fooled.
Not only that, but Microsoft Office started out on the Mac. It was ported to Windows/rewritten for Windows.
So which one is troublesome? MPEG or MPEG LA?
You mention both, possibly assuming they're the same thing.
My god, you really must be trolling.
The "everything is a corporate conspiracy to harm you" was a nice touch too.
You don't, but Apple have said (not just Jobs in this statement, but in developer workshops at WWDC in the past) that it is not collected, and what it is used for - A-GPS. Short of never believing anyone, at some point you have to assume non-malice and that he is telling the truth, even if you are skeptical. So far even the "sky is falling" people who have 'discovered' this 'secret' information have yet to say that it is being sent to Apple - from the nature of the data it is looking very likely that it is useful to the phone itself, and of limited use to Apple. Short of someone definitively proving otherwise, you have to at some point say "ok, they have said it's not being collected", in the same way that you have to trust Google is not keeping logs forever of each Android handset that reports its data.
So the reason the cache exists is to make the A-GPS work more quickly, especially for things like tagging your photos (if you have that feature turned on) - imagine how long that would take, and how much battery it would waste, if the phone had to fire up the GPS chip and use a cold-locate every time to work out where the phone is, compared to looking at the cache file first and working out roughly where it is, making an accurate GPS lock much quicker and for much less battery.
That is why the file exists, among many other location-aware activities on the phone (quicker lock in google maps, etc), not some wild conspiracy that "Apple is tracking your every move"
They didn't - that quote was from 2010, reposted with deliberate deception by a blog/slashdot troll summary to make it look current to generate some quick ad revenue from page hits.
It has the opposite magnetic moment, and various other properties that are reversed compared to a normal neutron.
With all due respect, you know very little about the workload of a teacher or the stress of the job.
Especially putting scare quotes around "planning period".
It's so easy to claim "they get 3 months off in the summer! unlike everyone else who works!" or "they don't work a full day!" (hahahahahahaha, oh wait you were saying that seriously, let me laugh even harder HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH).
I am not a teacher, but I know several - two of whom are close family members, and I can assure you they are not cruising along living the life of riley with luxurious long vacations or "not working a full day". They are overworked and underpaid, and critically not given the respect they deserve because they a criticised for having an "easy life and yet still complaining" by people who have no fucking idea.
Why would we have "centuries" of data on how CFCs interact with the ozone layer - they are man-made compounds that simply do not exist in nature without an anthropogenic source, and we didn't start using them until their invention as a replacement for H2S and NH3 in refrigeration systems and as a replacement for flammable blowing agents and aerosols. We were already studying the atmosphere before, during and after the cut down of CFCs. They are virtually inert compounds, which we thought was fantastic (they don;t burn or react in the environment), but their catalytic destruction of ozone in the presence of UV was not understood until they started getting concentrated over the pole.
The models were designed based on empirical evidence of how these species react - looking at reaction rates, profiles, activation energy, temperature dependence, reaction order etc, and the products that form in these reactions then asking a computer "hey what would happen if we had x concentration of y species in the atmosphere" and comparing it to real world measurements. It wasn't designed to "fit what we saw" or "fit out preconceptions". We looked at the chemistry and asked the computer to work out what would happen and, hey, it happens to match what was being observed in the atmosphere. We didn't tell the computer "make the model look like the atmosphere so we can say it was CFCs"
It's not like the model was fitted to the data and we declared it solved. In the wake of the CFC ban the ozone cover has been recovering, exactly as modelled and expected. It will be some years before it was back to the way it was before, since the species are very long lived in the atmosphere by their very nature.
Quite often the model doesn't predict what you expect, due to some missing piece of the puzzle (for example, the development of the Chapman Cycle as a way to explain the observed concentration of ozone in the atmosphere when the models predicted it to be about 5 times too high.
Your link contains this paragraph too:
Most of these new CFLs make people sick and diseased by emitting radio frequency radiation that contributes to dirty electricity, that can cause diabetes, cancer, cardiac problems, low or high blood pressure, sinusitis, bronchitis, pneumonia, asthma, migraines, dizziness, nausea, confusion, fatigue, digestive problems, enlarged thyroid, testicular/ovarian pain, internal bleeding; altered sugar metabolism, immune abnormalities; redistribution of metals within the bodyskin irritations, eye strain and many other ailments.
So, I'm assuming you also believe that WiFi base stations make people sick too?
Quack sites really aren't go-to places for definitive evidence.
You mean like those "station wagons" (we call them estates) and MPVs in Europe that already get considerably higher mpg figures than the lazy, uninspired US models, even after you divide by 1.2 to take account of the difference in size between the US and English gallon.
Don't blame the CAFE standards for the rise of the SUV, blame the loophole that allowed them to be built in the first place (putting profit before safety).
There was no reason you can't have powerful, efficient station wagons and MPVs - we have them in Europe and have had them for at least two decades. My father drives a 150bhp minivan that gets nearly 60mpg (50mpg US figure) and that's with all his engineering tools in the back. It does 0-60 in 9 seconds (a figure that a US commenter on /. put down as a decent figure for a US family car that a European car "would not be able to match"). It's also fun to drive.
My own car is French, so clearly wouldn't last 5 minutes on sale in the land of Freedom Fries (tm), but gets 55mpg (45.8mpg US figure) and can comfortably seat 5 with a huge load of luggage in the boot.
This technology wasn't alien to the US automakers, but at the time they were lobbying the government that they simply wouldn't be able to afford to make a car in 4 years that got the same gas mileage as legally mandated in China at the current time when they were already exceeding it in the European market. Ford's Euro offerings, for example, are one of the hilariously weird decisions of an industry that required a massive government bailout - here in the UK Ford makes some genuinely good cars, two or three of which are class leading models and have been for years. They also make some extremely efficient and powerful engines that are far ahead of anything they are offering in the US.
Blame it on regulation and laziness and effective lobbying and purchasing of congressmen and senators, don't blame it on the mandating of more efficient cars.
You can do an experiment that demonstrates how CFCs and HCFCs catalytically destroy ozone, and build computer models of the way the atmosphere works to show why we ended up with a specific "hole" over the pole rather than simply a weakened ozone layer all over.
There's really no doubt in this. Your bold assertion that
There's little evidence that human CFCs had any effect on the Antarctica hole, for example. The hole might have always been there, but we didn't see it until we looked.
is just laughable. So, first you say there's little evidence we had anything to do with it (without actually looking at any of the vast, vast amounts of data and tested hypotheses and models, and the resulting changes to the ozone layer in the years since), then say "it might" in the next sentence and expect your first one to be taken seriously!
Yes, we "might" not have had anything to do with it - that's why we *went and tested it out* to find the cause.
And 200 years ago you couldn't sit at home and write words into a magic electrical box so that other people with magic electrical boxes could read them on the other side of the word in near real time.
Are you new to the debate game? To win you not supposed to make easily refuted comments like that one. Just FYI.
-by Anonymous Coward on 24/04/11 18:15 (#35922484)
Settings > General > Location Services > Off
Are you new to the debate game? You're supposed to let people know who you are in a public debate. Just FYI.
In the UK about half of all consumer cars are diesel, right down to tiny little hatchbacks with 7 gallon tanks.
Truck pumps are also usually separate, since it allows them easier access and exit from the station, and often with no overhead cover so no worry about height issues.
Certainly if it *was* a flow rate issue it has just been grandfathered in here.