You are pretending - or are sufficiently ignorant to believe - that non-criminal profits are in any way conflicting with "human lives and the greater good".
You have obviously conveniently forgotten how this conversation started. When tobacco companies and energy companies pay huge amounts of money to make misinformation campaigns and to lobby politicians to prevent policies and actions to protect lives, all for the sake of the almighty buck, then that is the sort of thing that people like Robert F. Kennedy Jnr are saying is criminal behavior that should result in the management being charged.
And what was your take-home message from that? That Bill Nye said that all deniers should be punished or charged. But that was a lie.
When I pointed that they were only talking about those responsible for putting their profits ahead of human lives by producing misleading PR campaigns against science, your response is that none of those people should be charged and that "profit is for human lives and the greater good". That is just irresponsible, and it turned out that you didn't actually believe it yourself. Another lie.
When I gave examples of situations where profit isn't always for human lives and the greater good, you claimed that I equate profits with criminality. But saying that some means of making a profit is criminal is not the same as saying that all profits are criminal. You lied again.
And now you have to add caveats to your earlier, definitive claim that "profit is for human lives and the greater good" by adding the term "non-criminal". By doing so, you have implicitly agreed that criminal profit is not for human lives and not for the greater good. So unless you are soft on crime and don't think that criminal behavior should be punished, then you have to agree that if a company profits by criminal means then they should be punished. And if a company profits by acting against human lives and the greater good then they are by definition profiting from criminal acts.
By trying to make cheap, catch-phrase arguments you have effectively argued against your original assertion. If a company deliberately produces misinformation and attacks on science and scientists then they should be prosecuted.
You are the one who puts profits ahead of human lives and the greater good. Why don't you stop doing that?
And wasn't your point that any restriction on profits is Marxist nonsense? That there shouldn't be legal repercussions for doing something against the public interest to generate profits for a company? Suddenly you now accept that there should be some limits on what companies can do in the name of profits because you admit that the examples that I gave were criminal acts. I'm glad that you have come around to my point of view.
"The 80s just called. They want their "greed is good" mantra back."
That was a good and accurate mantra.
If you want to adhere to that simplistic motto then you are doomed to keep repeating the same boom/bust cycle and widening of the gap between the rich and poor. The simple fact is that the answer is never going to be one extreme or the other. It is not choice between Capitalism and Marxism, but rather a healthy mix of ideologies where appropriate.
What kind of marxist nonsense is that? Profit -is- for human lives and the greater good.
SERIOUSLY??? It is more profitable to use slave labor than pay your workers, but we don't allow that because it is not for the greater good. It is more profitable to be able to dump toxic waste where and whenever we want, but we don't allow that because it is not for the greater good. It is more profitable for become a monopoly and screw the customers who have no other choice, but that is also not for the greater good.
If you think that profit trumps human lives then feel free to submit yourself to untested medical experimentation because it would save some company from having to procure more expendable orphans or (heaven forbid) have to make do with animals.
The 80s just called. They want their "greed is good" mantra back.
Science and gut instincts are in no way mutually exclusive.
Yes they are. If Dr Spencer was making claims before based on only gut instinct while passing it off as science, then that is fraud. Given that he was raised as an authority whose evidence was being ignored around here, I think that it is telling that he makes such unscientific statements. It seems that those who ignore him are right to do so.
The point of science is to validate/invalidate the theory, not argue about its origin.
A gut instinct is nowhere near the same as a scientific theory.
No, it should not be "none". If people are putting profits ahead of human lives and the greater good then they should be punished. If they are deliberately publishing misinformation for financial gain then they should be punished. And if CEOs lie to their shareholders about what they know about climate change and how it might affect the company's profitability then they should be punished.
Since you aren't a Cliiimate Scientist, your opinion counts for shit, remember?
That is demonstrably wrong. If you really think that everyone here believes that here then you must also think that everyone posting here is a climate scientist, otherwise our own opinions would "count for shit" too.
The only people whose opinions are not worth hearing are those who are incapable of learning anything. They will go around and around in circles making the same stupid statements while doing the same spelling mistakes each time.
Bill Nye, and many others, have said that "deniers" should be punished or charged.
But did Bill Nye really say that all deniers should be charged? Just watch the video where he was asked about this.Firstly, look at the expression on his face when he hears the question. He looked rather surprised to get that question. This wasn't him making any grand proclamations, but rather just answering a question about what Robert F. Kennedy Jnr said.
Secondly, the question specifically mentioned energy CEOs and not all deniers. It is not about jailing any old Joe average who makes a statement against climate change, but about the heads of the large corporations spend millions of dollars spreading FUD and misinformation. Nye's answer even mentions the similar actions taken against the tobacco groups who did similar campaigns against health regulations when they knew that their products caused cancer. This refers precisely to what Kennedy said about the subject.
If you want to claim that this is an attempt to silence all critics, then you are either stretching the truth yourself or don't understand what was actually said.
Bill Nye doesn't report what the climate scientists say. Bill Nye is a fraud.
You are wrong. Whether you like it or not, what he says about climate change comes from the stuff that climate scientists publish.
He and Al Gore fake an experiment:
That is your evidence that he is a fraud? That he wasn't able to do an experiment in 30 seconds??? It is obvious that it was simply a bit of acting to go along with the commentary for a slick video. Next you will be saying that they didn't really have a massive cassette tape orbiting the Earth as shown in the first few seconds of the video!
But does it mean that CO2 doesn't heat the atmosphere, as Bill Bye claims that it does? Well no, as it says at the end of the article that you posted:
I should make it clear that I'm not doubting that CO2 has a positive radiative heating effect in our atmosphere, due to LWIR re-radiation, that is well established by science.
So does it mean that the experiment doesn't actually work? No again. It simply shows that what was on the video was a representation of the experiment and not the experiment itself. If you are trying to make a point about the credibility of someone from a 30 second piece of footage then you are being disingenuous.
You have gone off topic here, but all you have shown is that he once disagreed with the majority of the scientific community on GMOs and now he has changed his mind. He openly stated that this happened after a visit to the scientists at Monsanto. Normally the corrupt sell-outs tend to hide when they have been unduly influenced by a company.
Would they have put on a good show to convince him of the safety of GMOs? You are damn right. Did they pay him to change his mind?... You have presented no evidence of this, other than the speculation of some anti-GMO nature lovers. If anyone can find that he has taken cash for comment then we will have proof that he is a fraud. Until that happens, you just have baseless accusations.
Dr. Roy Spencer provides evidence and contrary opinions.
He also says a lot of stuff that isn't well supported by the evidence. In fact, he once said about his own paper:
"Our paper is an important step toward validating a gut instinct that many meteorologists like myself have had over the years," said Spencer, "that the climate system is dominated by stabilizing processes, rather than destabilizing processes -- that is, negative feedback rather than positive feedback."
One has to wonder how many of the climate myths that Dr Spencer has said have been a result of what his gut says rather than any evidence; and how much of his evidence is selected to match his gut feeling. His papers and comments do seem to be motivated by the desire to right the supposed mistakes of other climate research.
They think that the only way for global-average temperatures to change is for the climate system to be forced 'externally'...by a change in the output of the sun, or by a large volcanic eruption... But what they have ignored is the potential for the climate system to cause its own climate change. Climate change is simply what the system does, owing to its complex, dynamic, chaotic internal behavior.
In his quest to show that climate researchers are wrong, he has stated that the climate system is dominated by stabilizing processes, but also that it causes its own climate change by its complex, dynamic, chaotic internal behavior.
So take you pedantic ass and fuck off.
A well formed argument there, but I would expect nothing less from someone who consistently can't spell the word climate.
And we've been told time and time and time again, you have to be a Cliiimate Scientist if you want to be taken seriously.
No, but being able to spell the word climate correctly is a good start!
OK, I know that you were just trolling us, but I might as well address what you said. You don't have to be a climate scientist to be taken seriously, but if you are going to make claims that go against the current findings of science then you should have some evidence to back it up. That includes statements that the scientists are just in it for the money when the only evidence of illicit payments has been from conservative think tanks & energy companies or a price list for making public anti-AGW claims (including to congress).
Well, Al Gore can, but he's "right". Even though his predictions were patently wrong.
Al Gore never made any claims of his own; they were based on the science of the time. Were all this predictions "patently wrong", or just a few cherry-picked items? And does that matter? At the time Al Gore was making An Inconvenient Truth, the deniers were saying that global warming was over because it was actually getting colder - as long as you only compare the temperature to just one year: 1998 (the uncharacteristically hot year). As it kept getting warming, the claim became that warming had stopped. As it got hotter still, the claim was scientists had simply manipulated the figures to make it look hotter. No evidence to back up that claim either. Whatever Al Gore got wrong, at least he got the direction of the graph right!
yes... except that if they ask uncomfortable questions about climate change, they should be charged criminally.
Uncomfortable questions about climate change are fine, as long as you are willing to listen to the answers. If all you do once your question has been addressed is ignore that and move on to the next question until you eventually circle around and re-ask the first one again then you are not legitimately asking questions. All you are doing is trying to muddy the discussion.
Of course, if you ever run out of questions then you can always insinuate that the scientific community is trying to silence the critics who ask uncomfortable questions. Alternatively, you could just attack the credentials of someone who advocates the scientific view of climate change. For example, you could claim that they were as much of a scientist as you were, as if that made all they said false.
So you think that Carl Sagan was despised by many in science? I don't think so. I can't discount that are aren't some scientists in the world who don't like the man, but I doubt that it is true that many in science would think that. The fact that you found a couple of links of Sagan-haters from an "Austro-Anarchist Libertarian" patent lawyer and a whacky Christian disabled person is pretty meaningless.
There are people who find themselves in the unenviable position where science is inconvenient to their beliefs for either political, religious or financial reasons. Those people can't argue on an equal basis since scientists have facts, measurements, mathematics etc while they have just their gut feeling that all the scientists must be wrong. So they go after the scientists themselves, as well as anyone who communicates science to the masses (like Bill Nye). If the person wanting to belittle the science has heard of the person then they can attack them directly, but otherwise they will spread FUD about scientists all being in it for the money or all participating in a giant conspiracy to raise taxes.
So it isn't that people are targeting popularizers; they will go after everyone they can and cherry-pick any weakness that they think they have found. In this case, Sarah Palin has tried to belittle anything that Bill Nye says on this subject by pointing out that he is not a scientist. But if all he does is report what the climate scientists say, then it doesn't matter what his qualifications are. Sarah Palin is NOT as much of a scientist as all the scientists that Bill Nye talks about.
Men are not allowed to follow women into the ladies room and for good reason.
What good reason? How many women have been assaulted by a transgendered person? How much danger is a woman in from a biological who identifies and dresses as a woman whose only difference becomes apparent after they have locked themselves in a cubicle. Contrast that with someone who dresses as a woman entering the men's bathroom where the differences are apparent from the moment they enter, and who will attract the attention of people who either wonder what a woman is doing there or who might become affronted by that person and decide to beat the "gay" out of them.
As a public safety issue, this bigoted, North Carolina law is a terrible thing.
...and suddenly your entire post becomes an exercise in pedantry. The hardware will stop working. Whether it be by a signal being sent or a signal not being sent, it still prevents the hardware from doing what it used to do the day before. The customer will be just as pissed about their expensive systems just seem to die.
If you think that using the term "bricked" is inflammatory, you probably don't want to hear the language that will be used by the Revolv customers when the central part of their home automation stops working. If Google didn't want to "provide free server time", then perhaps they shouldn't have bought the company in the first place!
You must mean the instructions that offer *only* an email address to be entered so that MS keeps my machine tethered? How is that a "local" account?
Here are your instructions. From the User Accounts control panel, choose Manage Other Accounts, then Add a user-account, then Sign in without a Microsoft account (not recommended), and confirm this with the Local Account button. Now type in the name and password; no email required.
That wasn't too hard, was it? I take it you don't have the OS installed to test it. The only difference between Windows 10 and Windows 8 is that Win8 doesn't have the hyphen on the Add a user account link and it doesn't have the (not recommended) wording.
What if my machine has no internet connection? I can't use Windows 10 then??
Even with a Microsoft account, you can still login without internet access. I don't have a Microsoft account on any of my systems to test it, but I have done it on other people's systems when I had to fix their WiFi access.
I think he's alluding to that smart and educated people who know a lot about something sometimes makes the jump to start believing they know everything about anything.
Do you have an example of a smart and educated person who claims to know everything about anything? I very much doubt there is a single person who has ever made that claim. Even the economists who say that all the climate scientists are all wrong (even though that it obviously outside their field of study) would not dare to claim that they know everything about anything.
The whole idea that scientists think that they are infallible comes from the uneducated, so-called skeptics who are unable show that the science is wrong, and so denigrate the scientists instead. That is called playing the man and not the ball.
To put it in simple terms, if a scientist says that they know everything about anything then they have suddenly put themselves out of a job because there is nothing left to study.
Ars Technica has a really great article about Amazon expanding their Dash buttons to cover Red Bull, Starbucks, Trojan condoms and your mom.
As far as I can tell with a quick scan, nobody has submitted that as a story to Slashdot. You can see the submissions (and vote for them yourself) at the Firehose, and if you feel that they have missed something then you can submit a story.
It is not some massive conspiracy that they are only accepting Microsoft-related posts. They simply cannot reject a story that you find interesting that hasn't been submitted for consideration by anyone.
Not selling up-to-date Mechassault for console... not really inclined to buy console.
Also not compatible with older Mechassault? Definitely not buying console.
Microsoft must be devastated to know that they lost the market of people who only want to play one particular game. You know, the market that is the least profitable and least influential of all gamers.
Won't they be surprised when some other company swoops in and makes a Mechassault-only console!
In other words, they dont want to support or develop it any more and now they can point to the Free price tag for justification.
Since when does Google need to have a justification to drop a product? They do that sort of thing all the time.
Also, look at how many products and services that they have that are free. If making a product free was just an excuse to kill something then they must have it in for a substantial number of their products.
It seems the only reason MSFT would do this would be for brand recognition and/or giving folks a shinier golden parachute.
Maybe they don't want to see the collapse of such a well known player that could weaken confidence in the industry. Perhaps they want to ensure that Google doesn't buy Yahoo as they might prefer to compete with a number of smaller companies than a single, ever-growing giant. Or perhaps they are doing the same thing when they invested in Apple when everyone predicted that they company little chance of surviving (whoops; that backfired!).
If Microsoft needed the Yahoo brand recognition then they would buy the company itself rather than lend money to others to allow them to buy it. And I can't see them altruistically increasing another company's golden parachute.
I can count on zero hands the number of times I've been to Yahoo in the past decade.
So on one hand they get 6.7 billion visits a month, but on the other you haven't been visited there for a long time. What are we supposed to make of this? That the measure of any Internet company is whether you visit their sites?
You claim "iOS is the reason that they use OS X"; I was pointing out that the summary disagrees.
The summary does not disagree because it makes no mention of why people use one desktop OS over another.
The development of iOS is almost always done on a Mac, and as such the OS X use will be bolstered by those mobile developers. That doesn't mean that all Mac users are iOS devs, but the numbers will be larger because of those devs. The fact that more people are targeting Android does not count against OS X because development can be done on any system. It is reasonable to assume that a lot of Android devs were once iOS devs, and as such would already own (and are comfortable with) a Mac. They wouldn't throw out their computers when they switched to Android development.
Except that the summary also says that more people develop for Android than for iOS.
Developing for Android does not mean that you don't use OS X. In fact, if you want to target both iOS and Android then the best solution is a Mac. Yes, you can't write for iOS on other platforms, but that will be a small minority.
The summery says OS X which is for desktops and laptops IIRC. iOS is for iShiny.
The summary also says that it is developers that were surveyed. These are people who do not have to use the operating system for which they are developing. So... iOS is the reason that they use OS X.
Slashdot Mirror
You are pretending - or are sufficiently ignorant to believe - that non-criminal profits are in any way conflicting with "human lives and the greater good".
You have obviously conveniently forgotten how this conversation started. When tobacco companies and energy companies pay huge amounts of money to make misinformation campaigns and to lobby politicians to prevent policies and actions to protect lives, all for the sake of the almighty buck, then that is the sort of thing that people like Robert F. Kennedy Jnr are saying is criminal behavior that should result in the management being charged.
And what was your take-home message from that? That Bill Nye said that all deniers should be punished or charged. But that was a lie.
When I pointed that they were only talking about those responsible for putting their profits ahead of human lives by producing misleading PR campaigns against science, your response is that none of those people should be charged and that "profit is for human lives and the greater good". That is just irresponsible, and it turned out that you didn't actually believe it yourself. Another lie.
When I gave examples of situations where profit isn't always for human lives and the greater good, you claimed that I equate profits with criminality. But saying that some means of making a profit is criminal is not the same as saying that all profits are criminal. You lied again.
And now you have to add caveats to your earlier, definitive claim that "profit is for human lives and the greater good" by adding the term "non-criminal". By doing so, you have implicitly agreed that criminal profit is not for human lives and not for the greater good. So unless you are soft on crime and don't think that criminal behavior should be punished, then you have to agree that if a company profits by criminal means then they should be punished. And if a company profits by acting against human lives and the greater good then they are by definition profiting from criminal acts.
By trying to make cheap, catch-phrase arguments you have effectively argued against your original assertion. If a company deliberately produces misinformation and attacks on science and scientists then they should be prosecuted.
You're equating profit to criminality. Stop that.
You are the one who puts profits ahead of human lives and the greater good. Why don't you stop doing that?
And wasn't your point that any restriction on profits is Marxist nonsense? That there shouldn't be legal repercussions for doing something against the public interest to generate profits for a company? Suddenly you now accept that there should be some limits on what companies can do in the name of profits because you admit that the examples that I gave were criminal acts. I'm glad that you have come around to my point of view.
"The 80s just called. They want their "greed is good" mantra back."
That was a good and accurate mantra.
If you want to adhere to that simplistic motto then you are doomed to keep repeating the same boom/bust cycle and widening of the gap between the rich and poor. The simple fact is that the answer is never going to be one extreme or the other. It is not choice between Capitalism and Marxism, but rather a healthy mix of ideologies where appropriate.
But we have got way off topic here.
What kind of marxist nonsense is that? Profit -is- for human lives and the greater good.
SERIOUSLY??? It is more profitable to use slave labor than pay your workers, but we don't allow that because it is not for the greater good. It is more profitable to be able to dump toxic waste where and whenever we want, but we don't allow that because it is not for the greater good. It is more profitable for become a monopoly and screw the customers who have no other choice, but that is also not for the greater good.
If you think that profit trumps human lives then feel free to submit yourself to untested medical experimentation because it would save some company from having to procure more expendable orphans or (heaven forbid) have to make do with animals.
The 80s just called. They want their "greed is good" mantra back.
Science and gut instincts are in no way mutually exclusive.
Yes they are. If Dr Spencer was making claims before based on only gut instinct while passing it off as science, then that is fraud. Given that he was raised as an authority whose evidence was being ignored around here, I think that it is telling that he makes such unscientific statements. It seems that those who ignore him are right to do so.
The point of science is to validate/invalidate the theory, not argue about its origin.
A gut instinct is nowhere near the same as a scientific theory.
No one said "all". It should be "none".
No, it should not be "none". If people are putting profits ahead of human lives and the greater good then they should be punished. If they are deliberately publishing misinformation for financial gain then they should be punished. And if CEOs lie to their shareholders about what they know about climate change and how it might affect the company's profitability then they should be punished.
Since you aren't a Cliiimate Scientist, your opinion counts for shit, remember?
That is demonstrably wrong. If you really think that everyone here believes that here then you must also think that everyone posting here is a climate scientist, otherwise our own opinions would "count for shit" too.
The only people whose opinions are not worth hearing are those who are incapable of learning anything. They will go around and around in circles making the same stupid statements while doing the same spelling mistakes each time.
Bill Nye, and many others, have said that "deniers" should be punished or charged.
But did Bill Nye really say that all deniers should be charged? Just watch the video where he was asked about this.Firstly, look at the expression on his face when he hears the question. He looked rather surprised to get that question. This wasn't him making any grand proclamations, but rather just answering a question about what Robert F. Kennedy Jnr said.
Secondly, the question specifically mentioned energy CEOs and not all deniers. It is not about jailing any old Joe average who makes a statement against climate change, but about the heads of the large corporations spend millions of dollars spreading FUD and misinformation. Nye's answer even mentions the similar actions taken against the tobacco groups who did similar campaigns against health regulations when they knew that their products caused cancer. This refers precisely to what Kennedy said about the subject.
If you want to claim that this is an attempt to silence all critics, then you are either stretching the truth yourself or don't understand what was actually said.
Bill Nye doesn't report what the climate scientists say. Bill Nye is a fraud.
You are wrong. Whether you like it or not, what he says about climate change comes from the stuff that climate scientists publish.
He and Al Gore fake an experiment:
That is your evidence that he is a fraud? That he wasn't able to do an experiment in 30 seconds??? It is obvious that it was simply a bit of acting to go along with the commentary for a slick video. Next you will be saying that they didn't really have a massive cassette tape orbiting the Earth as shown in the first few seconds of the video!
But does it mean that CO2 doesn't heat the atmosphere, as Bill Bye claims that it does? Well no, as it says at the end of the article that you posted:
I should make it clear that I'm not doubting that CO2 has a positive radiative heating effect in our atmosphere, due to LWIR re-radiation, that is well established by science.
So does it mean that the experiment doesn't actually work? No again. It simply shows that what was on the video was a representation of the experiment and not the experiment itself. If you are trying to make a point about the credibility of someone from a 30 second piece of footage then you are being disingenuous.
Now he's pushing GMOs: http://www.naturalnews.com/052...
You have gone off topic here, but all you have shown is that he once disagreed with the majority of the scientific community on GMOs and now he has changed his mind. He openly stated that this happened after a visit to the scientists at Monsanto. Normally the corrupt sell-outs tend to hide when they have been unduly influenced by a company.
Would they have put on a good show to convince him of the safety of GMOs? You are damn right. Did they pay him to change his mind? ... You have presented no evidence of this, other than the speculation of some anti-GMO nature lovers. If anyone can find that he has taken cash for comment then we will have proof that he is a fraud. Until that happens, you just have baseless accusations.
Dr. Roy Spencer provides evidence and contrary opinions.
He also says a lot of stuff that isn't well supported by the evidence. In fact, he once said about his own paper:
"Our paper is an important step toward validating a gut instinct that many meteorologists like myself have had over the years," said Spencer, "that the climate system is dominated by stabilizing processes, rather than destabilizing processes -- that is, negative feedback rather than positive feedback."
One has to wonder how many of the climate myths that Dr Spencer has said have been a result of what his gut says rather than any evidence; and how much of his evidence is selected to match his gut feeling. His papers and comments do seem to be motivated by the desire to right the supposed mistakes of other climate research.
And yet he claims that it is the climate researchers who are the myopic ones:
They think that the only way for global-average temperatures to change is for the climate system to be forced 'externally'...by a change in the output of the sun, or by a large volcanic eruption... But what they have ignored is the potential for the climate system to cause its own climate change. Climate change is simply what the system does, owing to its complex, dynamic, chaotic internal behavior.
In his quest to show that climate researchers are wrong, he has stated that the climate system is dominated by stabilizing processes, but also that it causes its own climate change by its complex, dynamic, chaotic internal behavior.
So take you pedantic ass and fuck off.
A well formed argument there, but I would expect nothing less from someone who consistently can't spell the word climate.
And we've been told time and time and time again, you have to be a Cliiimate Scientist if you want to be taken seriously.
No, but being able to spell the word climate correctly is a good start!
OK, I know that you were just trolling us, but I might as well address what you said. You don't have to be a climate scientist to be taken seriously, but if you are going to make claims that go against the current findings of science then you should have some evidence to back it up. That includes statements that the scientists are just in it for the money when the only evidence of illicit payments has been from conservative think tanks & energy companies or a price list for making public anti-AGW claims (including to congress).
Well, Al Gore can, but he's "right". Even though his predictions were patently wrong.
Al Gore never made any claims of his own; they were based on the science of the time. Were all this predictions "patently wrong", or just a few cherry-picked items? And does that matter? At the time Al Gore was making An Inconvenient Truth, the deniers were saying that global warming was over because it was actually getting colder - as long as you only compare the temperature to just one year: 1998 (the uncharacteristically hot year). As it kept getting warming, the claim became that warming had stopped. As it got hotter still, the claim was scientists had simply manipulated the figures to make it look hotter. No evidence to back up that claim either. Whatever Al Gore got wrong, at least he got the direction of the graph right!
yes ... except that if they ask uncomfortable questions about climate change, they should be charged criminally.
Uncomfortable questions about climate change are fine, as long as you are willing to listen to the answers. If all you do once your question has been addressed is ignore that and move on to the next question until you eventually circle around and re-ask the first one again then you are not legitimately asking questions. All you are doing is trying to muddy the discussion.
Of course, if you ever run out of questions then you can always insinuate that the scientific community is trying to silence the critics who ask uncomfortable questions. Alternatively, you could just attack the credentials of someone who advocates the scientific view of climate change. For example, you could claim that they were as much of a scientist as you were, as if that made all they said false.
But he was a popularizer, just like Sagan was.
So you think that Carl Sagan was despised by many in science? I don't think so. I can't discount that are aren't some scientists in the world who don't like the man, but I doubt that it is true that many in science would think that. The fact that you found a couple of links of Sagan-haters from an "Austro-Anarchist Libertarian" patent lawyer and a whacky Christian disabled person is pretty meaningless.
There are people who find themselves in the unenviable position where science is inconvenient to their beliefs for either political, religious or financial reasons. Those people can't argue on an equal basis since scientists have facts, measurements, mathematics etc while they have just their gut feeling that all the scientists must be wrong. So they go after the scientists themselves, as well as anyone who communicates science to the masses (like Bill Nye). If the person wanting to belittle the science has heard of the person then they can attack them directly, but otherwise they will spread FUD about scientists all being in it for the money or all participating in a giant conspiracy to raise taxes.
So it isn't that people are targeting popularizers; they will go after everyone they can and cherry-pick any weakness that they think they have found. In this case, Sarah Palin has tried to belittle anything that Bill Nye says on this subject by pointing out that he is not a scientist. But if all he does is report what the climate scientists say, then it doesn't matter what his qualifications are. Sarah Palin is NOT as much of a scientist as all the scientists that Bill Nye talks about.
Men are not allowed to follow women into the ladies room and for good reason.
What good reason? How many women have been assaulted by a transgendered person? How much danger is a woman in from a biological who identifies and dresses as a woman whose only difference becomes apparent after they have locked themselves in a cubicle. Contrast that with someone who dresses as a woman entering the men's bathroom where the differences are apparent from the moment they enter, and who will attract the attention of people who either wonder what a woman is doing there or who might become affronted by that person and decide to beat the "gay" out of them.
As a public safety issue, this bigoted, North Carolina law is a terrible thing.
Net effect to the consumer is the same
...and suddenly your entire post becomes an exercise in pedantry. The hardware will stop working. Whether it be by a signal being sent or a signal not being sent, it still prevents the hardware from doing what it used to do the day before. The customer will be just as pissed about their expensive systems just seem to die.
If you think that using the term "bricked" is inflammatory, you probably don't want to hear the language that will be used by the Revolv customers when the central part of their home automation stops working. If Google didn't want to "provide free server time", then perhaps they shouldn't have bought the company in the first place!
You must mean the instructions that offer *only* an email address to be entered so that MS keeps my machine tethered? How is that a "local" account?
Here are your instructions. From the User Accounts control panel, choose Manage Other Accounts, then Add a user-account, then Sign in without a Microsoft account (not recommended), and confirm this with the Local Account button. Now type in the name and password; no email required.
That wasn't too hard, was it? I take it you don't have the OS installed to test it. The only difference between Windows 10 and Windows 8 is that Win8 doesn't have the hyphen on the Add a user account link and it doesn't have the (not recommended) wording.
What if my machine has no internet connection? I can't use Windows 10 then??
Even with a Microsoft account, you can still login without internet access. I don't have a Microsoft account on any of my systems to test it, but I have done it on other people's systems when I had to fix their WiFi access.
I think he's alluding to that smart and educated people who know a lot about something sometimes makes the jump to start believing they know everything about anything.
Do you have an example of a smart and educated person who claims to know everything about anything? I very much doubt there is a single person who has ever made that claim. Even the economists who say that all the climate scientists are all wrong (even though that it obviously outside their field of study) would not dare to claim that they know everything about anything.
The whole idea that scientists think that they are infallible comes from the uneducated, so-called skeptics who are unable show that the science is wrong, and so denigrate the scientists instead. That is called playing the man and not the ball.
To put it in simple terms, if a scientist says that they know everything about anything then they have suddenly put themselves out of a job because there is nothing left to study.
Ars Technica has a really great article about Amazon expanding their Dash buttons to cover Red Bull, Starbucks, Trojan condoms and your mom.
As far as I can tell with a quick scan, nobody has submitted that as a story to Slashdot. You can see the submissions (and vote for them yourself) at the Firehose, and if you feel that they have missed something then you can submit a story.
It is not some massive conspiracy that they are only accepting Microsoft-related posts. They simply cannot reject a story that you find interesting that hasn't been submitted for consideration by anyone.
Not selling up-to-date Mechassault for console... not really inclined to buy console.
Also not compatible with older Mechassault? Definitely not buying console.
Microsoft must be devastated to know that they lost the market of people who only want to play one particular game. You know, the market that is the least profitable and least influential of all gamers.
Won't they be surprised when some other company swoops in and makes a Mechassault-only console!
they charge in $AUD
No, they charge in US$.
In other words, they dont want to support or develop it any more and now they can point to the Free price tag for justification.
Since when does Google need to have a justification to drop a product? They do that sort of thing all the time.
Also, look at how many products and services that they have that are free. If making a product free was just an excuse to kill something then they must have it in for a substantial number of their products.
It seems the only reason MSFT would do this would be for brand recognition and/or giving folks a shinier golden parachute.
Maybe they don't want to see the collapse of such a well known player that could weaken confidence in the industry. Perhaps they want to ensure that Google doesn't buy Yahoo as they might prefer to compete with a number of smaller companies than a single, ever-growing giant. Or perhaps they are doing the same thing when they invested in Apple when everyone predicted that they company little chance of surviving (whoops; that backfired!).
If Microsoft needed the Yahoo brand recognition then they would buy the company itself rather than lend money to others to allow them to buy it. And I can't see them altruistically increasing another company's golden parachute.
I can count on zero hands the number of times I've been to Yahoo in the past decade.
So on one hand they get 6.7 billion visits a month, but on the other you haven't been visited there for a long time. What are we supposed to make of this? That the measure of any Internet company is whether you visit their sites?
You claim "iOS is the reason that they use OS X"; I was pointing out that the summary disagrees.
The summary does not disagree because it makes no mention of why people use one desktop OS over another.
The development of iOS is almost always done on a Mac, and as such the OS X use will be bolstered by those mobile developers. That doesn't mean that all Mac users are iOS devs, but the numbers will be larger because of those devs. The fact that more people are targeting Android does not count against OS X because development can be done on any system. It is reasonable to assume that a lot of Android devs were once iOS devs, and as such would already own (and are comfortable with) a Mac. They wouldn't throw out their computers when they switched to Android development.
Except that the summary also says that more people develop for Android than for iOS.
Developing for Android does not mean that you don't use OS X. In fact, if you want to target both iOS and Android then the best solution is a Mac. Yes, you can't write for iOS on other platforms, but that will be a small minority.
...there was nothing else in this sector (vaio does not count, fuck vaio).
You're right. There is nothing else in this sector as long as you ignore the others that are in the sector (like Sony, Samsung, Toshiba, ...)
The summery says OS X which is for desktops and laptops IIRC. iOS is for iShiny.
The summary also says that it is developers that were surveyed. These are people who do not have to use the operating system for which they are developing. So... iOS is the reason that they use OS X.