The world is inarguably getting hotter, the number of disciplines and variables required to determine a firm model for the earth's climate is daunting.
Actually, it is arguable. The article mentions that the number of temperature sensors has dropped from 6000 to 2000 in 30 years. I don't know if those numbers are accurate, but assuming they are, that's 2000 temperature readings to cover the entire globe. Between you and me, that's not enough. 6,000 isn't enough, IMO. That's a lot of holes to fill in with computer models, which is an expensive way of saying "guesses".
Global warming advocates made a prediction in 1988. They were wrong, on the high side, by a significant factor. Based on the generally accepted definition of science, the global warming advocates have practiced bad science. How this bad science gets transformed into "inarguably, etc." I'll never understand. How this bad science gets turned into "but we have to account for the worst possible case" for political purposes--that I fully understand.
I call bullshit. You have several climate scientist friends? Unless you are a climate scientist yourself, I doubt it. Or unless they're handing out degrees in climate science like Halloween candy. It's almost like saying "I have several French surrealist poetry expert friends". While it is possible, it's pretty unlikely. Unless you're still in school, in which case you misspelled "climate scientist students". I bet by "several" you actually mean "two", and they're married to each other. Just a hunch.
In any event, if these several climate scientist friends actually do exist, if they look hard into their field of study and find that something fundamental looks hinky, they're not going to shrug, say "well, guess I'll have to go back to school and get an MBA" and bork their entire career. Even if it's not highly profitable. Put another way, the guy working the fry bucket at the fast-food place isn't going to look fondly on the fry-cooking robot even though his job and the pay sucks--it's still his job. The point stands--with global warming, your several climate scientist friends are big heroes saving the globe. Without global warming they're just weathermen who aren't attractive enough to put on TV in a rented suit.
Your argument would be much stronger if the Fox anchors were also saying aloud, "Foley, a Democrat from Florida". Which I don't think they were. Essentially your argument is that Fox viewers are so stupid and gullible that they're susceptible to extremely subtle visual tricks, but not to the broader story which is has been largely about how Foley's shenanigans hurt Republicans. It sounds stupid because it is.
The number of assumptions you make is astounding. What you're claiming is that Fox News was trying to convince the world that Foley was a Democrat, and that they believed they could get away with it because people who watch Fox News are gullible idiots. This is paranoia so astonishingly stupid that I'm surprised you're not cowering in the closet, hiding from the greys with the anal probes.
Why should I be bothered by a recidivism rate? If they're back in jail again, it's likely because they are not good people. I am utterly uninterested in reforming criminals. If they are capable of reform, they will most likely do it themselves. If they are not, they need to be seperated from society.
Also it only costs a lot of money to imprison somebody because there are quite rigorous standards that must be met for prisons. Relax those standards and you can imprison somebody quite inexpensively. See the Arizona sheriff who runs a work camp with little more than tents.
Yep, crashed on me. Installed the latest version of Quicktime (FF was already up-to-date), and it stopped crashing. It still did weird things with the videos when I scrolled, and everything was really, really sluggish--my mouse cursor was like a slideshow.
I'm not sure who to blame, but it's very annoying.
Also there's the inflation issue. When the New World was opened up and all that Aztec gold was shipped back to Spain, prices skyrocketed. If you dump a ton of Moon gold on the Earth, the gold won't be worth $625/oz.
You must teach me this magick. You wave your hands and speak a word--"you fundy"--and all need for debate melts away. What incredible powers! Truly you are supernatural.
The current administration has been quite effective in keeping this issue in the public eye and billing it less as an issue of science and more of a threat to society. The issue has taken on the sentiment that if the concept of evolution becomes widely accepted then faith is voided and we enter moral decay (which is obviously wrong, thanks Bush). But it's definitely how a majority of Americans feel. Science threatens their faith.
That's a fascinating unsubstantiated claim.
Oddly enough, you seem to be inordinately proud of your rationality.
Also, don't forget that DVDs may not be forever. Barring an incredible breakthrough in compression and/or Internet connectivity speeds, the Next Big Video format will likely be disk-based just like DVDs, and Netflix has a distribution model that accounts for this.
I see the iTunes rental being a good model for time-shifting TV shows without A) owning a TiVO and B) subscribing to cable. I wouldn't mind a so-so quality download of Supernatural when I get some time to watch it, rather than waiting for the entire season to be collected on DVD. I wouldn't care if it times out in a few days, as I'll probably download and watch it on the same day.
Some are, but Diamond Age would be a brilliant movie. It would take some work, but it could be Metropolitan with special effects. There's an interesting moral angle to explore and plenty of opportunities for stunning visuals.
Biggest problem is it would require considerable rework to pare down the number of characters.
Nice, Schnier's argument is that data-mining leads to a lot of dead ends. Bravo! What brilliant logic? Seeing as how most people are NOT terrorists, you're going to run into a lot of dead ends no matter what you do.
Also, the data-mining did not gather information on 300 million US citizens, unless 300 million citizens were making international phone calls.
Thunderbird is not without it's problems. A client today had an Inbox greater than 1 Gig in size. Entirely possible, true, except he was fastidious about deleting emails (and then emptying the Trash).
And now when he clicks "Get Mail" it doesn't get anything. He has to click on the arrow and choose to get messages for his particular account. Why is it doing this now? No clue. I'm trying a few dead-chicken-wavings before I just shrug and say, "do it that way now."
Maybe a system where you gather a little more information about suspected terrorists other than their name before throwing them on some sort of list that prevents anyone with that name from doing all sorts of normal tasks.
Well, we tried that, and the NY Times decided to nullify it by publicizing it. We also tried to find patterns in international calls, but boy, that was just as awful as Watergate. As I understand it, the only thing left to government to catch terrorists before they blow themselves up for the glory of Allah is to hire psychics. And then the Slashdot crowd would make endless Miss Cleo jokes.
Which is why Slashdot political discussions are less than worthless. Unless you're into mockery.
I think it's a sensitivity thing myself. At least partly. The MacBook is a nice maching, IMO, and I've been permanently bonded to mine since I got it several weeks ago. For the record, my trackpad button is a bit mushy on the right side, but since I never click it there, I don't give a flying fuck.
There's shared blame for the sensitivity, too. Apple (rightly) advertises itself as a better alternative. Mac users tend to be more discriminating, or at least think they are. Combine those two and mix in an extremely low-price consumer-oriented laptop, and you've got a perfect storm of potential bloviating over trivialities. Remember, it's rare that you get a forum dedicated to fawning over an Apple product when it's working. You only see the negative from people who have issues, either real or imagined.
I wish computer reviews and computer review sites weren't such complete trash. ArsTechnica is probably the best of a bad lot, and they highly rated the MacBook, which is why I drove to Dallas to look at them (and buy one).
The MacBook is practically v3. There was the MacBook Pro, then the Mac Mini, and now the MacBook. They're not exactly the same, but it's constant improvement process on a similar platform.
My only complaint about the MacBook thus far is that it can get a bit warm, and that Photoshop is not native yet. This is a bang-up laptop for the price.
The Powerbook Duo was a helluva machine. Sub-notebook and a desktop. It was nice to be able to do page-layout with dual monitors at work, and take the Duo home to do copywriting and the like. Expensive, though.
As for this, I can see the benefit to a few people, but 1) people who need workstation-level graphics will also need more RAM and faster processors than are available in laptops, and 2) people who would like to game with their laptops like to game on their laptops away from their desk, which is why they're playing games on laptops.
Of course, I haven't RTFA, as the link is dead to me.
Well, as I understand it, federal law prohibits you from copying and distributing software. So, no, you can't do that. I don't imagine anybody would care if you made a zillion copies of Photoshop and sat on them. It's the free distribution of same that Adobe will frown on.
Adobe cannot make a profit and finance development simply by selling support. Your comparison to MySQL and Redhat is spurious.
Funny thing, when IBM owned all the hardware and software, and simply leased it to their customers, they were a much bigger company. IBM now isn't much of a major player, so "realizing the truth" for them is nearly equivalent to "screwing our shareholders in the ass".
I can copy it however many times I want and distribute it without taking anything from you other than what you voluntarily gave to me. That's not theft. In fact, that's my right.
Well, no, you can't. I understand that you clarify later in your post regarding copyright laws, but you make a mistake blurring the line between books, music and software. Software is not exactly like music or a book. Software companies must provide support and ongoing development to keep up with the pace of technological improvements. It's not like a book that never changes. They don't get residuals. There has to be a financial reason for them to continue developing software, and you sitting in your basement punching out copies of the software you bought and giving them away impacts on that.
We're benefited, both individually and collectively, by software companies enjoying some degree of protection, like special consideration as regards to copyright law so they aren't treated the same as an author or musician, since their product is different enough to justify such consideration.
It's kind of sad that Adobe and Microsoft (and especially the font foundries) don't realize that they are pricing themselves out of greater compliance. Adobe less so--I think their Creative Suite is a bang-up deal--but certainly $400+ for Office is a bit excessive and encourages piracy. As does charging $3500 for a font library (ITC) or $80/font (also ITC). These companies are not keeping up with the times. Too many designers are not part of a giant ad agency, they're independent contractors, and they can't afford such things, especially when they're starting out. But when they start doing better, they're still hesitant to drop a pantload of money just so they can be "compliant". There's a risk-reward decision, and the risk is small compared to the reward of being able to upgrade to a new computer instead of buying a proper software license.
Slashdot Mirror
The world is inarguably getting hotter, the number of disciplines and variables required to determine a firm model for the earth's climate is daunting.
Actually, it is arguable. The article mentions that the number of temperature sensors has dropped from 6000 to 2000 in 30 years. I don't know if those numbers are accurate, but assuming they are, that's 2000 temperature readings to cover the entire globe. Between you and me, that's not enough. 6,000 isn't enough, IMO. That's a lot of holes to fill in with computer models, which is an expensive way of saying "guesses".
Global warming advocates made a prediction in 1988. They were wrong, on the high side, by a significant factor. Based on the generally accepted definition of science, the global warming advocates have practiced bad science. How this bad science gets transformed into "inarguably, etc." I'll never understand. How this bad science gets turned into "but we have to account for the worst possible case" for political purposes--that I fully understand.
I call bullshit. You have several climate scientist friends? Unless you are a climate scientist yourself, I doubt it. Or unless they're handing out degrees in climate science like Halloween candy. It's almost like saying "I have several French surrealist poetry expert friends". While it is possible, it's pretty unlikely. Unless you're still in school, in which case you misspelled "climate scientist students". I bet by "several" you actually mean "two", and they're married to each other. Just a hunch.
In any event, if these several climate scientist friends actually do exist, if they look hard into their field of study and find that something fundamental looks hinky, they're not going to shrug, say "well, guess I'll have to go back to school and get an MBA" and bork their entire career. Even if it's not highly profitable. Put another way, the guy working the fry bucket at the fast-food place isn't going to look fondly on the fry-cooking robot even though his job and the pay sucks--it's still his job. The point stands--with global warming, your several climate scientist friends are big heroes saving the globe. Without global warming they're just weathermen who aren't attractive enough to put on TV in a rented suit.
They are genetically unique life forms. They're not going to suddenly turn into a Jello pudding cup.
If you feel otherwise, frame me an argument against abortion without bringing in any religion or religious ideas.
We shouldn't kill people.
Your argument would be much stronger if the Fox anchors were also saying aloud, "Foley, a Democrat from Florida". Which I don't think they were. Essentially your argument is that Fox viewers are so stupid and gullible that they're susceptible to extremely subtle visual tricks, but not to the broader story which is has been largely about how Foley's shenanigans hurt Republicans. It sounds stupid because it is.
The number of assumptions you make is astounding. What you're claiming is that Fox News was trying to convince the world that Foley was a Democrat, and that they believed they could get away with it because people who watch Fox News are gullible idiots. This is paranoia so astonishingly stupid that I'm surprised you're not cowering in the closet, hiding from the greys with the anal probes.
Why should I be bothered by a recidivism rate? If they're back in jail again, it's likely because they are not good people. I am utterly uninterested in reforming criminals. If they are capable of reform, they will most likely do it themselves. If they are not, they need to be seperated from society.
Also it only costs a lot of money to imprison somebody because there are quite rigorous standards that must be met for prisons. Relax those standards and you can imprison somebody quite inexpensively. See the Arizona sheriff who runs a work camp with little more than tents.
STFU noob.
Yep, crashed on me. Installed the latest version of Quicktime (FF was already up-to-date), and it stopped crashing. It still did weird things with the videos when I scrolled, and everything was really, really sluggish--my mouse cursor was like a slideshow.
I'm not sure who to blame, but it's very annoying.
Also there's the inflation issue. When the New World was opened up and all that Aztec gold was shipped back to Spain, prices skyrocketed. If you dump a ton of Moon gold on the Earth, the gold won't be worth $625/oz.
You must teach me this magick. You wave your hands and speak a word--"you fundy"--and all need for debate melts away. What incredible powers! Truly you are supernatural.
That's a fascinating unsubstantiated claim.
Oddly enough, you seem to be inordinately proud of your rationality.
Also, don't forget that DVDs may not be forever. Barring an incredible breakthrough in compression and/or Internet connectivity speeds, the Next Big Video format will likely be disk-based just like DVDs, and Netflix has a distribution model that accounts for this.
I see the iTunes rental being a good model for time-shifting TV shows without A) owning a TiVO and B) subscribing to cable. I wouldn't mind a so-so quality download of Supernatural when I get some time to watch it, rather than waiting for the entire season to be collected on DVD. I wouldn't care if it times out in a few days, as I'll probably download and watch it on the same day.
Some are, but Diamond Age would be a brilliant movie. It would take some work, but it could be Metropolitan with special effects. There's an interesting moral angle to explore and plenty of opportunities for stunning visuals.
Biggest problem is it would require considerable rework to pare down the number of characters.
AOL sucks? Tell that to all those people who use AIM everyday.
Nice, Schnier's argument is that data-mining leads to a lot of dead ends. Bravo! What brilliant logic? Seeing as how most people are NOT terrorists, you're going to run into a lot of dead ends no matter what you do.
Also, the data-mining did not gather information on 300 million US citizens, unless 300 million citizens were making international phone calls.
I invite you to prove the illegality of the international wiretaps and the financial record mining. Please. If you do, you'll be the first.
Thunderbird is not without it's problems. A client today had an Inbox greater than 1 Gig in size. Entirely possible, true, except he was fastidious about deleting emails (and then emptying the Trash).
And now when he clicks "Get Mail" it doesn't get anything. He has to click on the arrow and choose to get messages for his particular account. Why is it doing this now? No clue. I'm trying a few dead-chicken-wavings before I just shrug and say, "do it that way now."
Maybe a system where you gather a little more information about suspected terrorists other than their name before throwing them on some sort of list that prevents anyone with that name from doing all sorts of normal tasks.
Well, we tried that, and the NY Times decided to nullify it by publicizing it. We also tried to find patterns in international calls, but boy, that was just as awful as Watergate. As I understand it, the only thing left to government to catch terrorists before they blow themselves up for the glory of Allah is to hire psychics. And then the Slashdot crowd would make endless Miss Cleo jokes.
Which is why Slashdot political discussions are less than worthless. Unless you're into mockery.
I think it's a sensitivity thing myself. At least partly. The MacBook is a nice maching, IMO, and I've been permanently bonded to mine since I got it several weeks ago. For the record, my trackpad button is a bit mushy on the right side, but since I never click it there, I don't give a flying fuck.
There's shared blame for the sensitivity, too. Apple (rightly) advertises itself as a better alternative. Mac users tend to be more discriminating, or at least think they are. Combine those two and mix in an extremely low-price consumer-oriented laptop, and you've got a perfect storm of potential bloviating over trivialities. Remember, it's rare that you get a forum dedicated to fawning over an Apple product when it's working. You only see the negative from people who have issues, either real or imagined.
I wish computer reviews and computer review sites weren't such complete trash. ArsTechnica is probably the best of a bad lot, and they highly rated the MacBook, which is why I drove to Dallas to look at them (and buy one).
The MacBook is practically v3. There was the MacBook Pro, then the Mac Mini, and now the MacBook. They're not exactly the same, but it's constant improvement process on a similar platform.
My only complaint about the MacBook thus far is that it can get a bit warm, and that Photoshop is not native yet. This is a bang-up laptop for the price.
The Powerbook Duo was a helluva machine. Sub-notebook and a desktop. It was nice to be able to do page-layout with dual monitors at work, and take the Duo home to do copywriting and the like. Expensive, though.
As for this, I can see the benefit to a few people, but 1) people who need workstation-level graphics will also need more RAM and faster processors than are available in laptops, and 2) people who would like to game with their laptops like to game on their laptops away from their desk, which is why they're playing games on laptops.
Of course, I haven't RTFA, as the link is dead to me.
Well, as I understand it, federal law prohibits you from copying and distributing software. So, no, you can't do that. I don't imagine anybody would care if you made a zillion copies of Photoshop and sat on them. It's the free distribution of same that Adobe will frown on.
Adobe cannot make a profit and finance development simply by selling support. Your comparison to MySQL and Redhat is spurious.
Funny thing, when IBM owned all the hardware and software, and simply leased it to their customers, they were a much bigger company. IBM now isn't much of a major player, so "realizing the truth" for them is nearly equivalent to "screwing our shareholders in the ass".
I can copy it however many times I want and distribute it without taking anything from you other than what you voluntarily gave to me. That's not theft. In fact, that's my right.
Well, no, you can't. I understand that you clarify later in your post regarding copyright laws, but you make a mistake blurring the line between books, music and software. Software is not exactly like music or a book. Software companies must provide support and ongoing development to keep up with the pace of technological improvements. It's not like a book that never changes. They don't get residuals. There has to be a financial reason for them to continue developing software, and you sitting in your basement punching out copies of the software you bought and giving them away impacts on that.
We're benefited, both individually and collectively, by software companies enjoying some degree of protection, like special consideration as regards to copyright law so they aren't treated the same as an author or musician, since their product is different enough to justify such consideration.
It's kind of sad that Adobe and Microsoft (and especially the font foundries) don't realize that they are pricing themselves out of greater compliance. Adobe less so--I think their Creative Suite is a bang-up deal--but certainly $400+ for Office is a bit excessive and encourages piracy. As does charging $3500 for a font library (ITC) or $80/font (also ITC). These companies are not keeping up with the times. Too many designers are not part of a giant ad agency, they're independent contractors, and they can't afford such things, especially when they're starting out. But when they start doing better, they're still hesitant to drop a pantload of money just so they can be "compliant". There's a risk-reward decision, and the risk is small compared to the reward of being able to upgrade to a new computer instead of buying a proper software license.