On second thought... it is public domain that is obsolete by their wording... And that is truly disheartening.
Actually I think their practical take on the issue is quite heartening. I'm worried about the continued existence of the Public Domain. But on the other hand, much like the cost of airmail doesn't affect me much in terms of sending correspondence, because I use email instead, what is or isn't in the Public Domain doesn't affect me much on a daily basis because all the stuff that is still copyright protected is nevertheless a couple keystrokes away. Like just yesterday I was looking at all the different versions of "I Put a Spell on You" from Screamin Jay Hawkins to Marilyn Manson. No idea which are copyrighted, but they were right there on the YouTubes anyway.
Which makes me feel better about the continued expansion of copyright and the decline of the public domain -- because these issues seem nigh insurmountable, but on the other hand, may not end up mattering much practically.
True. He's not a "skeptic". He's a skeptic. He's skeptical of things which it makes sense to be skeptical of, where serious questions lay, and not so skeptical of things where all questions skeptical scientists have asked have been answered.
He is, like all true skeptics, just as skeptical of his own ideas as he is of the ideas of others.
For instance he was skeptical as to whether questionable weather balloon data, and the urban heat island effect, had been properly accounted for in other analysis. This could, hypothetically, drastically change the results. While a "skeptic" would then say "therefore all IPCC data is invalid and AGW is a sham", Mueller, being an actual skeptic, wanted to actually find out if his idea was correct. And was willing to contemplate that he was wrong.
I'm sorry that this isn't the kind of "skeptic" you wanted. I'm sorry that we can't find someone who is as biased as you want them to be in the direction you want them to be, but who is also in tune with what actual weaknesses in climate science exist and who is ready to accept that it is possible they themselves are wrong, not just that prevailing climate science is wrong. Sorry if you feel lied to that it was claimed he was a GW Skeptic, which is true, but not for the definition you wished.
Nevertheless, this is the kind of skeptic we need. This is the kind of skeptic who helps. Because instead of trying to "balance" bias (even though he does, around the real fulcrum of the scientific debate), his results help to eliminate bias. The question is not: Does the bias match or go against the results. The question is: Was the science done properly, so that bias was eliminated as much as possible.
That question is what Mueller was skeptical of. This is more evidence that the science was done properly.
You don't seem to believe that, because Mueller wasn't biased the way you wanted him to be. But the fact is that his results did go against his preconception and biases. So if that's what you care about, then you should pay attention to his results.
It's not like hyper threading. For integer operations, the AMD chips are much better. What AMD doesn't have is two floating point units so that's what gets bogged down. There are two instruction decoders and two units to handle integer math, but one floating point unit per component.
The decoders are a shared resource in the Bulldozer core. That can be a significant bottleneck that affects integer code. Also, those integer sub-cores are still sharing a single interface to the L2 and higher up the memory hierarchy. So it's not all roses for integer apps.
Speaking of memory hierarchy, the FX parts are, like FX parts of the past, just server chips slapped into a consumer package. So the cores being studied here all have pretty substantial L3s. One of the claimed benefits of putting related threads on the same core is that they can share via the L2. Which is true, but partially mitigated by sharing on the L3.
I would expect mainstream consumer parts based on the BD core to lack an L3, and then it's more likely that scheduling integer threads from the same process on the same core will provide a bigger benefit. The one test in the article that benefited from the 0xf affinity mask should show an even bigger increase, and other tests might change which affinity is preferred.
The problem is: your curly braces syle is wrong, you heretic - only fools put curly braces there - that other way is the only true way. Python ended the braces style holy wars forever, which at a large company is a big thing.
Wow. They've eliminated one of the thousands of coding-style holy wars that go on at companies stuffed with jackasses who can't compromise on some reasonable coding guidelines (and no, I'm not saying this is uncommon). I'm sure the people who couldn't agree on curly brace location will have no problem agreeing on spaces-per-indention-level or the ever popular tabs-vs-spaces or how to format multi-line conditionals etc etc etc.
This is similar to the "improves readability" argument for enforcing indentation in that it tackles only a tiny aspect of the problem. At least in terms of coding style holy wars it doesn't actually make the problem worse to a greater degree than it helps. I still don't see it as a good reason for losing braces.
Note for the ignorant... that REALLY IS what it stands for!
Heh. Note to the ignorant who want to not be so and don't have a Camel book handy: No it isn't. At least, not exactly.
The "official" expansion is Practical Extraction and Report Language (the 'a' formerly being part of the acronym when it was briefly called 'Pearl'). "Official" is in quotes because there really isn't an official-official expansion, and Larry Wall wanted the name to inspire a variety of acronym expansions. But this is the one you'll see in the documentation.
Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Lister is just one of those other expansions the name inspired, and is often used by Perl aficionados (including Larry Wall, who I think coined it) as a term of endearment for the language and it's eccentricities.
So you could say "[Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Lister] really is what it stands for", and be right, but it's in a metaphorical sense similar to how one might say "Ford really means Fix Or Repair Daily" (only in this case it's affectionate instead of insulting).
If those punctuation marks (or keywords) make the code more readable, then they're not gratuitous are they? I, for one, find brace-less languages fantastically hard to read, Python especially.
I LUUUUURV Python so much that if it was legal I would marry it, but I completely agree. Curly braces to denote block starts and stops make the code easier to read and manage. I should not have to wonder whether a function or block continues past the bottom of the current screen's worth of code when it ends with a few lines of whitespace because I have to know the indentation level of the next line of code to know if it's in a different block context than the last line of code on the current page. I also should never have to wonder if I re-indented code correctly when cut/pasting or adding/removing a level of block nesting.
I don't care if Python wants to keep the indentation requirements. Forcing the code of awful programmers to be more readable in this way is a good thing. Forcing all code to be less readable in another way is a bad trade-off. Just add in the damn braces! Then I can use tools to auto-indent for additional readability.
Zzzz..... WoW bores me to no end these days. A new expansion will not help.
WoW doesn't bore me at all these days. Because I stopped playing when Cataclysm dropped. Not because of any changes in Cataclysm or anything... just because I was very bored with all non-raiding parts of the game, and the part that was still fun, raiding, was too much like a job with bi-weekly appointments that interfered with the rest of my life. So the new expansion's arrival seemed like the right time. I made my last few attempts to get Kingslayer (nope, didn't do it) and then made a clean break.
If you're bored, quit. If you're bored, if it's all "same crap, different day", but you can't make yourself quit, get help. For reals.
Why do you need immunity if you're not planning to do anything wrong?
I may not be planning on doing anything wrong according to my definition of wrong, but that doesn't mean I want to be subject to your definition of wrong.
Whether you believe the U.S. military has no such intention, or that their -- or the Iraqi government's -- definition of "wrong" is a valid one, that is the fundamental issue.
Personally I think getting all of our troops out of the country is the perfect resolution to the problem.
Yes, all but this one, who's results went against the bias of the funding institution. This is why I, an arch-climate skeptic, am more likely to believe this study.
Did you also believe the government studies that occurred under the previous administration whose results went against their bosses' wishes so strongly that the bosses decided to edit the report themselves to better suit what they wished?
BTW, the "bias" of most climate scientists, and scientists in general, is to find something different than their colleagues. That's how you make yourself stand out and gain recognition in the scientific and academic community. However that only works if the science they did holds up, which is why scientists fight frightfully hard to keep their biases -- which all humans have -- from affecting their results.
Hopefully the fact that this study reached the same results as the "biased" ones will help illuminate this fact.
But in any case, I am as always pleased as punch to see someone's opinion influenced by evidence. Thank you and have a nice day.
Sorry, but this is just proof that a (relatively) free market worked. In this particular case, "public money" created the Internet, but it sure as hell wasn't public money that allowed it to beat the others in the *gasp* free market. It was the local net providers, the little ISPs, that provided a better experience.
I think you're confused. The topic of discussion is whether or not private industry would have created the Internet if the government hadn't created it for them, and the simple fact is that they wouldn't have because they didn't. They created their own networks, but they were nothing like the Internet.
And the Internet beat these corporate walled-garden networks among the corporation's own customers. AOL retained an enormous number of subscribers and was the nation's largest ISP long after the AOL Network was completely irrelevant.
Without the Internet, those small ISPs wouldn't have had anything to Provide Service to. Without the small ISPs, the Internet would have still won over the walled garden networks. We know this because it did win over the walled garden networks even among those who didn't change providers.
The Free Market -- i.e. the Ron Paul Libertarian version where there's no federal government creating the Internet -- was tried, and it fucking failed.
Like I already said above in my reply to ArcherB's comment, we could have easily taken out Gaddafi when he officially visited France in 2007 and Italy in 2009 (both countries are NATO allies).
Here's a link to my other post in response to someone suggesting assassination. TLDR version: Assassination is not regime change, so you accomplish nothing positive and actually make things worse.
We know what private industry would have done wrt creating the Internet in the absence of the federal government. Because they did create it. Or rather them.
Compuserve. AOL MSN Prodigy and others.
Each a walled garden, isolated from and incompatible with the others. Each created to require enforce the idea that customers are clients, rather than allowing arbitrary client/server or peer-to-peer relationships (as business has been trying to do with the Internet).
We already know what business would have created without the Internet. And they sucked in comparison to the real thing. That's why all of these networks began to wane the second the Internet became available to the public. They turned into nothing more than ISPs with portal websites and they only did that because it was that or disappear instantly.
In 1995 Bill Gates was saying that the Internet was a fad and everyone would return to the safety of MSN real soon now.
The idea that if the Internet didn't exist that private industry would have created it is simply a-historical.
I homeschool - my kids kick ass and I don't need your fucking State education.
Energy and geo research will be fine if the government gets the hell out of it and starts leaving people alone to discover the economic incentives. If the economic incentives are not there, then tough shit.
So, I take it your kids aren't learning about the concept of externalities.
I do not mean occupy, I mean send in a sniper and let him spend $1 to remove the problem. No need for the big military way.
Then one of his many sons takes power, all his military and power structure is still in place, and his supporters -- and even detractors -- are rallied around opposition to Western interventionism.
Kinda like how whenever the U.S. or Israel rattle sabers at Iran, the Iranian regime becomes more powerful. Because even the many Iranians who hate the government would rather have it than have the U.S. try to 'liberate' Iran. The vast majority of them still believe in the Islamic Revolution, which was when the people overthrew the U.S.-backed dictator.
I mean it sounds nice in theory, but in reality you get to tick off the "good deed" checkbox while making the actual problem worse.
But thanking NATO for its actions in Libya is hypocrisy at large - If the NATO countries really cared for the Libyan people then they would have killed that asshole DECADES ago.
No, because taking out a dictator in the absence of a local revolutionary force to combat the regime means that we have to not just take out the dictator but the rest of their military and government ourselves, so we become occupiers that hope to eventually hand the country back to its own people. You know, like in Iraq.
However supporting a popular uprising, preventing the dictator from being able to freely use their military hardware to crush the uprising, so that the people themselves can take the country back for themselves without us ever deciding whether or not they deserve it is how you show you care about the Libyan people.
Oh and obviously decades ago the U.S. didn't give two shits about the Libyan people. It was all about Israeli and Cold War politics. Controllable dictators were better than communists or free countries that might become communist was the official line. That's why we supported assholes like Gaddafi and Saddam.
Times have changed. And now, for the first time in decades, we've put ourselves on the right side of history.
Dear AC, go fuck yourself. This gun toting meat eating liberal says we should have dealt with Gadaffi years ago.
I disagree. We never should have initiated action to take out Gadaffi. This is how you become occupiers (whether that's your intent or not, it is what happens), like we did after "dealing with" Saddam's regime.
Instead we should have waited for the Libyan people to initiate action to take out Gadaffi, and then helped them deal with Gadaffi themselves. Which is what we did. Planes in the air, advisers on the ground, and material support, but no U.S. marines patrolling Tripoli with us hoping that eventually Libyans will be able to do it themselves. Instead of us taking over Libya and then handing back to them when we feel they're ready, we helped Libyans take over Libya for themselves, and now it is theirs. This is infinitely better.
Imagine if the French had decided to "deal with" the British government in the American colonies well before the revolution. How hated would they have been? Instead, they provided significant -- I would say decisive -- support for a popular uprising, and thus became a great and loved ally of the U.S. for many years (minus a few disagreements and one quasi-war at sea), until Americans forgot that without the French we'd still be spelling color with a 'u'.
By the way, I do think we never should have supported Gadaffi and maybe this would have happened sooner.
Also, the right time to have dealt with Saddam was when the uprising occurred after Desert Storm. And we never should have supported him, either. Then we might have actually been greeted as liberators.
Going after every 'bad' guy is not the right way to exercise military power in a 'liberal' way. At least if it's the outcome that matters, not the feel-good activism aspect.
Well, they weren't explicitly a CoE denier. They were explicitly a CoM denier who was just ignorant of the connection... They proposed an Aristotlean theory of motion, where an object maintaining non-zero momentum required a constant input of energy, and you could use this universal energy to ignore momentum and instantly start and stop or turn 90 degrees like the old Light Cycles from Tron.
They easily could have been a troll, but they went to a lot of trouble for it. They had their own blog with a lengthy screed about how Newton and every other scientist since was wrong and Aristotle was right and how obvious it all was. Even had out-of-context quotes from The Principia that tried to make it seem like even Newton knew that his laws of motion were bunk.
Could have been a troll, same as this current joker. Seems like lot of effort just to demonstrate Poe's Law, but people have done weirder things.
Personally I think The Flat Earth Society is a mix of people who are laughing their ass off and people who are earnest. Probably started as a joke, but once you agree to pretend to take it seriously, you'll inevitably attract people that really do believe it.
And obviously those people aren't smart enough to understand the environmental and other implications of their belief.:)
I don't see why not -- just take your nuclear arms, gently put them around the child, and there you go. Is it because it's too difficult to make a tactical nuke small enough that the human skeleton and shoulder muscles would be able to lift it? If we're replacing the arms with nukes anyway, why not enhance the rest of the body so that it could? Seems like an engineering problem to me.
Heh. That's nothing new, really. Ever heard of The Electric Universe? Whole gaggle of crackpots who claim the universe is dominated by electricity while simultaneously not understanding it. Not only is Relativity out for them, but even Newtonian gravity doesn't explain the motion of planets as far as they're concerned.
I gotta admit, though, this is a new take on crackpottery and that's always amusing.
Not quite as amusing as the Conservation of Momentum/Energy Denialist that was haunting Slashdot for a while. That was pretty impressive.
Last week the newspapers were filled with the discovery of "impossible" particles traveling faster than the speed of light.
And while Relativity must be subjected to the highest standards of evidence(and is), this discovery of course must be accepted as the complete truth as soon as it comes out.
earlier the Pioneer space probes also refused to adhere to the law
I love how the Pioneer Anomaly is always used as proof of whatever crackpot theory someone wants it to, or dis-proof of whatever theory they want to discredit even if only tangentially related. But in reality, anomalies like this are usually best understood by more fully understanding the circumstances. For example, once someone went to the trouble to more accurately model the way light would reflect off of the Pioneer probe's structure, suddenly the Pioneer "anomaly" went away.
Oh, I'm sorry, was I only allowed to assume that all of science was wrong when figuring out what was going on with a weird observation? Theories are fair game, but the methodologies and calculations used to determine if the theory's predictions are correct can't be updated? It was called an "anomaly" before, ergo Relativity must be wrong?
And... you think this is a more intelligent way of approaching science?
In the future they will look back to relativity with equal disbelief as to the "Earth is flat" concept.
You mean they'll view it as a theory that fit all available evidence better than any other available theory, up until the time that it didn't and then it was abandoned? You're probably right. BTW, that happened a lot earlier than most of you folks who trot out the Flat Earth Theory think. The earth was understood to be round, and even it's circumference calculated with a surprising degree of accuracy, in around 200 B.C. But comparing Relativity to the Spherical Earth Theory (which is wrong) would be too honest.
Relativity, like the flat or spherical earth theories, will last as long as it's the best theory -- and unlike the Flat Earth, but more like Classical mechanics, it is likely going to be close enough to correct that it will still be used for a wide variety of circumstances even in this hypothetical future you envision.
The relativity theory not only goes against common sense
Quantum Electrodynamics pisses all over your precious "common sense" while cackling like Pennywise the Clown, yet it has been verified experimentally to 15 decimal places.
Even basic probability goes against common sense, but guess which one does a better job of predicting what you should bet on a hand in poker.
But hey, I have to admit, Tesla said Relativity had to be wrong, so I guess it must be.
But wait, those mainstream scientists who "worship" Albert Einstein still adhere to QED and QM even though Einstein said they didn't make sense and he didn't like them.
Gee, I wonder which group of people it is -- mainstream science or "rebel" science --that actually evaluates theories on their merits, and which just picks authority figures who say what they want to hear?
physical ether with fluid-like properties... a fundamental thinking error has been made by Maxwell in his equations.
Kinda funny how they propose an aether theory, while also saying Maxwell is wrong (despite truly ridiculous amounts of verification), when the whole reason the aether theory was proposed in the first place was to explain how the speed of light in a vacuum could be constant, as implied by Maxwell's equations, in the presence of relative motion.
Keeping my fingers crossed....
And that's... pretty much all you're doing, isn't it? Scientists have been subjecting their theories to every test they can come up with, developing alternative ones and comparing the predictions they make to the evidence, and seeing which comes out best and picking that one. Crackpots pick one or two things that are difficult to explain, claim that proves them completely right and everything else wrong, and ignore the mountains of evidence their crackpot theory can't explain.
Slashdot Mirror
On second thought... it is public domain that is obsolete by their wording... And that is truly disheartening.
Actually I think their practical take on the issue is quite heartening. I'm worried about the continued existence of the Public Domain. But on the other hand, much like the cost of airmail doesn't affect me much in terms of sending correspondence, because I use email instead, what is or isn't in the Public Domain doesn't affect me much on a daily basis because all the stuff that is still copyright protected is nevertheless a couple keystrokes away. Like just yesterday I was looking at all the different versions of "I Put a Spell on You" from Screamin Jay Hawkins to Marilyn Manson. No idea which are copyrighted, but they were right there on the YouTubes anyway.
Which makes me feel better about the continued expansion of copyright and the decline of the public domain -- because these issues seem nigh insurmountable, but on the other hand, may not end up mattering much practically.
*shrug*
Yeah... This guy is no "skeptic".
True. He's not a "skeptic". He's a skeptic. He's skeptical of things which it makes sense to be skeptical of, where serious questions lay, and not so skeptical of things where all questions skeptical scientists have asked have been answered.
He is, like all true skeptics, just as skeptical of his own ideas as he is of the ideas of others.
For instance he was skeptical as to whether questionable weather balloon data, and the urban heat island effect, had been properly accounted for in other analysis. This could, hypothetically, drastically change the results. While a "skeptic" would then say "therefore all IPCC data is invalid and AGW is a sham", Mueller, being an actual skeptic, wanted to actually find out if his idea was correct. And was willing to contemplate that he was wrong.
I'm sorry that this isn't the kind of "skeptic" you wanted. I'm sorry that we can't find someone who is as biased as you want them to be in the direction you want them to be, but who is also in tune with what actual weaknesses in climate science exist and who is ready to accept that it is possible they themselves are wrong, not just that prevailing climate science is wrong. Sorry if you feel lied to that it was claimed he was a GW Skeptic, which is true, but not for the definition you wished.
Nevertheless, this is the kind of skeptic we need. This is the kind of skeptic who helps. Because instead of trying to "balance" bias (even though he does, around the real fulcrum of the scientific debate), his results help to eliminate bias. The question is not: Does the bias match or go against the results. The question is: Was the science done properly, so that bias was eliminated as much as possible.
That question is what Mueller was skeptical of. This is more evidence that the science was done properly.
You don't seem to believe that, because Mueller wasn't biased the way you wanted him to be. But the fact is that his results did go against his preconception and biases. So if that's what you care about, then you should pay attention to his results.
I really don't know what we'd do without them.
The same things as now, but only once.
Will the end user have to do esoteric tweaks after the next Service Pack for Windows? Nope.
Maybe they're saying that running Windows Update is an esoteric tweak?
I guess they should pay the teenager next door to do it for them, and then clear off all the spyware they have from running an unpatched OS.
It's not like hyper threading. For integer operations, the AMD chips are much better. What AMD doesn't have is two floating point units so that's what gets bogged down. There are two instruction decoders and two units to handle integer math, but one floating point unit per component.
The decoders are a shared resource in the Bulldozer core. That can be a significant bottleneck that affects integer code. Also, those integer sub-cores are still sharing a single interface to the L2 and higher up the memory hierarchy. So it's not all roses for integer apps.
Speaking of memory hierarchy, the FX parts are, like FX parts of the past, just server chips slapped into a consumer package. So the cores being studied here all have pretty substantial L3s. One of the claimed benefits of putting related threads on the same core is that they can share via the L2. Which is true, but partially mitigated by sharing on the L3.
I would expect mainstream consumer parts based on the BD core to lack an L3, and then it's more likely that scheduling integer threads from the same process on the same core will provide a bigger benefit. The one test in the article that benefited from the 0xf affinity mask should show an even bigger increase, and other tests might change which affinity is preferred.
The problem is: your curly braces syle is wrong, you heretic - only fools put curly braces there - that other way is the only true way. Python ended the braces style holy wars forever, which at a large company is a big thing.
Wow. They've eliminated one of the thousands of coding-style holy wars that go on at companies stuffed with jackasses who can't compromise on some reasonable coding guidelines (and no, I'm not saying this is uncommon). I'm sure the people who couldn't agree on curly brace location will have no problem agreeing on spaces-per-indention-level or the ever popular tabs-vs-spaces or how to format multi-line conditionals etc etc etc.
This is similar to the "improves readability" argument for enforcing indentation in that it tackles only a tiny aspect of the problem. At least in terms of coding style holy wars it doesn't actually make the problem worse to a greater degree than it helps. I still don't see it as a good reason for losing braces.
Over-emphasizing day 1 productivity is a bad thing when most of your days will not be 'day 1'.
Yeah, well if that guy from Memento tries his hand at programming, then maximizing day (or hour) 1 productivity would be of the utmost importance!
Note for the ignorant... that REALLY IS what it stands for!
Heh. Note to the ignorant who want to not be so and don't have a Camel book handy: No it isn't. At least, not exactly.
The "official" expansion is Practical Extraction and Report Language (the 'a' formerly being part of the acronym when it was briefly called 'Pearl'). "Official" is in quotes because there really isn't an official-official expansion, and Larry Wall wanted the name to inspire a variety of acronym expansions. But this is the one you'll see in the documentation.
Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Lister is just one of those other expansions the name inspired, and is often used by Perl aficionados (including Larry Wall, who I think coined it) as a term of endearment for the language and it's eccentricities.
So you could say "[Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Lister] really is what it stands for", and be right, but it's in a metaphorical sense similar to how one might say "Ford really means Fix Or Repair Daily" (only in this case it's affectionate instead of insulting).
If those punctuation marks (or keywords) make the code more readable, then they're not gratuitous are they? I, for one, find brace-less languages fantastically hard to read, Python especially.
I LUUUUURV Python so much that if it was legal I would marry it, but I completely agree. Curly braces to denote block starts and stops make the code easier to read and manage. I should not have to wonder whether a function or block continues past the bottom of the current screen's worth of code when it ends with a few lines of whitespace because I have to know the indentation level of the next line of code to know if it's in a different block context than the last line of code on the current page. I also should never have to wonder if I re-indented code correctly when cut/pasting or adding/removing a level of block nesting.
I don't care if Python wants to keep the indentation requirements. Forcing the code of awful programmers to be more readable in this way is a good thing. Forcing all code to be less readable in another way is a bad trade-off. Just add in the damn braces! Then I can use tools to auto-indent for additional readability.
Indeed. This is the reason why the Obfuscated Perl Contest is run by the Department of Redundancy Department.
There are invisible pink horse on the moon. Go ahead, try to prove me wrong.
The invisible lions on the moon ate all the invisible pink horses long ago.
Zzzz..... WoW bores me to no end these days. A new expansion will not help.
WoW doesn't bore me at all these days. Because I stopped playing when Cataclysm dropped. Not because of any changes in Cataclysm or anything... just because I was very bored with all non-raiding parts of the game, and the part that was still fun, raiding, was too much like a job with bi-weekly appointments that interfered with the rest of my life. So the new expansion's arrival seemed like the right time. I made my last few attempts to get Kingslayer (nope, didn't do it) and then made a clean break.
If you're bored, quit. If you're bored, if it's all "same crap, different day", but you can't make yourself quit, get help. For reals.
Why do you need immunity if you're not planning to do anything wrong?
I may not be planning on doing anything wrong according to my definition of wrong, but that doesn't mean I want to be subject to your definition of wrong.
Whether you believe the U.S. military has no such intention, or that their -- or the Iraqi government's -- definition of "wrong" is a valid one, that is the fundamental issue.
Personally I think getting all of our troops out of the country is the perfect resolution to the problem.
Yes, all but this one, who's results went against the bias of the funding institution. This is why I, an arch-climate skeptic, am more likely to believe this study.
Did you also believe the government studies that occurred under the previous administration whose results went against their bosses' wishes so strongly that the bosses decided to edit the report themselves to better suit what they wished?
BTW, the "bias" of most climate scientists, and scientists in general, is to find something different than their colleagues. That's how you make yourself stand out and gain recognition in the scientific and academic community. However that only works if the science they did holds up, which is why scientists fight frightfully hard to keep their biases -- which all humans have -- from affecting their results.
Hopefully the fact that this study reached the same results as the "biased" ones will help illuminate this fact.
But in any case, I am as always pleased as punch to see someone's opinion influenced by evidence. Thank you and have a nice day.
Sorry, but this is just proof that a (relatively) free market worked. In this particular case, "public money" created the Internet, but it sure as hell wasn't public money that allowed it to beat the others in the *gasp* free market. It was the local net providers, the little ISPs, that provided a better experience.
I think you're confused. The topic of discussion is whether or not private industry would have created the Internet if the government hadn't created it for them, and the simple fact is that they wouldn't have because they didn't. They created their own networks, but they were nothing like the Internet.
And the Internet beat these corporate walled-garden networks among the corporation's own customers. AOL retained an enormous number of subscribers and was the nation's largest ISP long after the AOL Network was completely irrelevant.
Without the Internet, those small ISPs wouldn't have had anything to Provide Service to. Without the small ISPs, the Internet would have still won over the walled garden networks. We know this because it did win over the walled garden networks even among those who didn't change providers.
The Free Market -- i.e. the Ron Paul Libertarian version where there's no federal government creating the Internet -- was tried, and it fucking failed.
Like I already said above in my reply to ArcherB's comment, we could have easily taken out Gaddafi when he officially visited France in 2007 and Italy in 2009 (both countries are NATO allies).
Here's a link to my other post in response to someone suggesting assassination. TLDR version: Assassination is not regime change, so you accomplish nothing positive and actually make things worse.
We know what private industry would have done wrt creating the Internet in the absence of the federal government. Because they did create it. Or rather them.
Compuserve.
AOL
MSN
Prodigy
and others.
Each a walled garden, isolated from and incompatible with the others. Each created to require enforce the idea that customers are clients, rather than allowing arbitrary client/server or peer-to-peer relationships (as business has been trying to do with the Internet).
We already know what business would have created without the Internet. And they sucked in comparison to the real thing. That's why all of these networks began to wane the second the Internet became available to the public. They turned into nothing more than ISPs with portal websites and they only did that because it was that or disappear instantly.
In 1995 Bill Gates was saying that the Internet was a fad and everyone would return to the safety of MSN real soon now.
The idea that if the Internet didn't exist that private industry would have created it is simply a-historical.
I homeschool - my kids kick ass and I don't need your fucking State education.
Energy and geo research will be fine if the government gets the hell out of it and starts leaving people alone to discover the economic incentives. If the economic incentives are not there, then tough shit.
So, I take it your kids aren't learning about the concept of externalities.
I do not mean occupy, I mean send in a sniper and let him spend $1 to remove the problem. No need for the big military way.
Then one of his many sons takes power, all his military and power structure is still in place, and his supporters -- and even detractors -- are rallied around opposition to Western interventionism.
Kinda like how whenever the U.S. or Israel rattle sabers at Iran, the Iranian regime becomes more powerful. Because even the many Iranians who hate the government would rather have it than have the U.S. try to 'liberate' Iran. The vast majority of them still believe in the Islamic Revolution, which was when the people overthrew the U.S.-backed dictator.
I mean it sounds nice in theory, but in reality you get to tick off the "good deed" checkbox while making the actual problem worse.
But thanking NATO for its actions in Libya is hypocrisy at large - If the NATO countries really cared for the Libyan people then they would have killed that asshole DECADES ago.
No, because taking out a dictator in the absence of a local revolutionary force to combat the regime means that we have to not just take out the dictator but the rest of their military and government ourselves, so we become occupiers that hope to eventually hand the country back to its own people. You know, like in Iraq.
However supporting a popular uprising, preventing the dictator from being able to freely use their military hardware to crush the uprising, so that the people themselves can take the country back for themselves without us ever deciding whether or not they deserve it is how you show you care about the Libyan people.
Oh and obviously decades ago the U.S. didn't give two shits about the Libyan people. It was all about Israeli and Cold War politics. Controllable dictators were better than communists or free countries that might become communist was the official line. That's why we supported assholes like Gaddafi and Saddam.
Times have changed. And now, for the first time in decades, we've put ourselves on the right side of history.
Dear AC, go fuck yourself. This gun toting meat eating liberal says we should have dealt with Gadaffi years ago.
I disagree. We never should have initiated action to take out Gadaffi. This is how you become occupiers (whether that's your intent or not, it is what happens), like we did after "dealing with" Saddam's regime.
Instead we should have waited for the Libyan people to initiate action to take out Gadaffi, and then helped them deal with Gadaffi themselves. Which is what we did. Planes in the air, advisers on the ground, and material support, but no U.S. marines patrolling Tripoli with us hoping that eventually Libyans will be able to do it themselves. Instead of us taking over Libya and then handing back to them when we feel they're ready, we helped Libyans take over Libya for themselves, and now it is theirs. This is infinitely better.
Imagine if the French had decided to "deal with" the British government in the American colonies well before the revolution. How hated would they have been? Instead, they provided significant -- I would say decisive -- support for a popular uprising, and thus became a great and loved ally of the U.S. for many years (minus a few disagreements and one quasi-war at sea), until Americans forgot that without the French we'd still be spelling color with a 'u'.
By the way, I do think we never should have supported Gadaffi and maybe this would have happened sooner.
Also, the right time to have dealt with Saddam was when the uprising occurred after Desert Storm. And we never should have supported him, either. Then we might have actually been greeted as liberators.
Going after every 'bad' guy is not the right way to exercise military power in a 'liberal' way. At least if it's the outcome that matters, not the feel-good activism aspect.
Well, they weren't explicitly a CoE denier. They were explicitly a CoM denier who was just ignorant of the connection... They proposed an Aristotlean theory of motion, where an object maintaining non-zero momentum required a constant input of energy, and you could use this universal energy to ignore momentum and instantly start and stop or turn 90 degrees like the old Light Cycles from Tron.
They easily could have been a troll, but they went to a lot of trouble for it. They had their own blog with a lengthy screed about how Newton and every other scientist since was wrong and Aristotle was right and how obvious it all was. Even had out-of-context quotes from The Principia that tried to make it seem like even Newton knew that his laws of motion were bunk.
Could have been a troll, same as this current joker. Seems like lot of effort just to demonstrate Poe's Law, but people have done weirder things.
Personally I think The Flat Earth Society is a mix of people who are laughing their ass off and people who are earnest. Probably started as a joke, but once you agree to pretend to take it seriously, you'll inevitably attract people that really do believe it.
And obviously those people aren't smart enough to understand the environmental and other implications of their belief. :)
You can't hug your children with Nuclear Arms.
I don't see why not -- just take your nuclear arms, gently put them around the child, and there you go. Is it because it's too difficult to make a tactical nuke small enough that the human skeleton and shoulder muscles would be able to lift it? If we're replacing the arms with nukes anyway, why not enhance the rest of the body so that it could? Seems like an engineering problem to me.
Wait, I get the feeling I'm missing something...
Heh. That's nothing new, really. Ever heard of The Electric Universe? Whole gaggle of crackpots who claim the universe is dominated by electricity while simultaneously not understanding it. Not only is Relativity out for them, but even Newtonian gravity doesn't explain the motion of planets as far as they're concerned.
I gotta admit, though, this is a new take on crackpottery and that's always amusing.
Not quite as amusing as the Conservation of Momentum/Energy Denialist that was haunting Slashdot for a while. That was pretty impressive.
Last week the newspapers were filled with the discovery of "impossible" particles traveling faster than the speed of light.
And while Relativity must be subjected to the highest standards of evidence(and is), this discovery of course must be accepted as the complete truth as soon as it comes out.
earlier the Pioneer space probes also refused to adhere to the law
I love how the Pioneer Anomaly is always used as proof of whatever crackpot theory someone wants it to, or dis-proof of whatever theory they want to discredit even if only tangentially related. But in reality, anomalies like this are usually best understood by more fully understanding the circumstances. For example, once someone went to the trouble to more accurately model the way light would reflect off of the Pioneer probe's structure, suddenly the Pioneer "anomaly" went away.
Oh, I'm sorry, was I only allowed to assume that all of science was wrong when figuring out what was going on with a weird observation? Theories are fair game, but the methodologies and calculations used to determine if the theory's predictions are correct can't be updated? It was called an "anomaly" before, ergo Relativity must be wrong?
And... you think this is a more intelligent way of approaching science?
In the future they will look back to relativity with equal disbelief as to the "Earth is flat" concept.
You mean they'll view it as a theory that fit all available evidence better than any other available theory, up until the time that it didn't and then it was abandoned? You're probably right. BTW, that happened a lot earlier than most of you folks who trot out the Flat Earth Theory think. The earth was understood to be round, and even it's circumference calculated with a surprising degree of accuracy, in around 200 B.C. But comparing Relativity to the Spherical Earth Theory (which is wrong) would be too honest.
Relativity, like the flat or spherical earth theories, will last as long as it's the best theory -- and unlike the Flat Earth, but more like Classical mechanics, it is likely going to be close enough to correct that it will still be used for a wide variety of circumstances even in this hypothetical future you envision.
The relativity theory not only goes against common sense
Quantum Electrodynamics pisses all over your precious "common sense" while cackling like Pennywise the Clown, yet it has been verified experimentally to 15 decimal places.
Even basic probability goes against common sense, but guess which one does a better job of predicting what you should bet on a hand in poker.
But hey, I have to admit, Tesla said Relativity had to be wrong, so I guess it must be.
But wait, those mainstream scientists who "worship" Albert Einstein still adhere to QED and QM even though Einstein said they didn't make sense and he didn't like them.
Gee, I wonder which group of people it is -- mainstream science or "rebel" science --that actually evaluates theories on their merits, and which just picks authority figures who say what they want to hear?
physical ether with fluid-like properties... a fundamental thinking error has been made by Maxwell in his equations.
Kinda funny how they propose an aether theory, while also saying Maxwell is wrong (despite truly ridiculous amounts of verification), when the whole reason the aether theory was proposed in the first place was to explain how the speed of light in a vacuum could be constant, as implied by Maxwell's equations, in the presence of relative motion.
Keeping my fingers crossed....
And that's... pretty much all you're doing, isn't it? Scientists have been subjecting their theories to every test they can come up with, developing alternative ones and comparing the predictions they make to the evidence, and seeing which comes out best and picking that one. Crackpots pick one or two things that are difficult to explain, claim that proves them completely right and everything else wrong, and ignore the mountains of evidence their crackpot theory can't explain.