There is no need to provide actual arguments when the original claim didn't make any arguments either. Surely the onus is on the original accuser to prove their EEE meme. The only link that your provided in your post is to an irrelevant gif about racism.
You say that Microsoft has a track record of this, but what has it actually successfully embraced, extended and extinguished? When they are contributing to an open source project (that can be forked at any time by anyone), how can they possibly extinguish the Linux kernel? We all have the access to the code.
If they extend the kernel as part of the main project those extensions are available to all, so it's not like they can only work for Microsoft customers. What evidence is there that any of the existing Linux contributions by Microsoft have any backdoors or patent traps in them, and how would it ever stand up in court if they did try to sue for patents citing the code that they submitted?
I have yet to hear this or any other hurricane being described as the worst hurricane ever. Whenever one of these record-breaking weather phenomena occurs, it is always said that it was the worst on record. What you have done is reworded how they are described and then complained specifically about the rewording.
That is a total lie. I defy you to cite one quotation that shows that somebody thought that famine, drought, war or disease was a new concept and that it never existed prior to their generation.
If your losses are 50% you need a 50% higher investment.
That's fine if the build cost is only 50% of what it would be in closer, but more populated and valuable area. It's the same as the smartphone in your pocket that was built overseas and then shipped rather than been made locally. It still works out to be cheaper even with the shipping included.
According to the original post, the price that creimer wanted to spend was $129, which only gave a 10% improvement. It doesn't matter what the price of the original CPU was as a point of comparison, what matters is what someone is willing to pay now. So no, 10% is not interesting.
If you are concerned about price per unit of performance, then there is an obvious answer. Rather than get a more expensive CPU, simply forgo the upgrade completely. The performance difference will be barely noticeable while the cost savings in terms of time and money is substantial. Then you can wait and hope that the next round of CPUs at the preferred price point will provide more than a 10% improvement.
They are trying to hijack the ownership rights of works created using software.
Just repeating the claim doesn't make it right. Even if the injunction succeeds and monetary damages are awarded, the ownership of the films will still be in the clutches of Disney. Disney owns the films, it is just that they won't be able to distribute them (temporarily).
If this passes legal muster, the implications are very ugly. Like "copyrights on APIs" kind of ugly.
No, this isn't a precedent-setting case. It is quite normal for injunctions preventing the sale of offending products to be sought during legal cases.
If the Russians have information that Hillary is trying to hide, the American people should be demanding to know what it is, and thanking the Russians for providing it.
It's funny to hear this argument when every leak that is embarrassing to the Trump administration gets met with attempts by conservative pundits to redirect the discussion to finding and prosecuting the leakers. Apparently, demanding to know what Trump is trying to hide and thanking the leakers doesn't seem so important.
Then why did Jill Stein request a recount in three states?
Well they say the first stage is denial... or maybe it was just desperate hope that a manual recount would change the outcome. After all, why only do it in three states? If it was a real allegation of voter fraud, the she would not have said this:
Stein has said she has no evidence of fraud going into a recount of ballots in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan, but wants to ensure the integrity of the election.
But it certainly wasn't a widespread belief of the entire group called "the Left".
That is a lie. The left has never made a claim of voter fraud. That particular accusation came from Donald Trump himself prior to the election. He had no proof of this then, and still hasn't.
The claims the left made were that Russia influenced the elections. The hacking that went on as part of this influence campaign happened prior to the election (the email server). There is some evidence for this influence, as witnessed by the emails actually being released on Wikileaks and Donald Trump Jr's disclosure of his emails which spoke of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump.
None of those things matter. Maybe her people should clean up their own country so that the new generation has better opportunities to exploit with its potential. Islam isn't so keen on girls doing intellectual work..or work of any kind, except homemaker.
You say that none of these things matter, and then proceed to say what a big deal it is for a girl in Afghanistan to be able to do robotics. You completely contradict yourself in one single paragraph.
And what opportunity have these girls missed? Oh yes, going to the United States. In this case, it is not Islam that is holding these girls back.
That was under MS Windows 3.0, 3.1, 3.11 and higher, where you would start multiple MS-DOS shell
The summary (and grandparent poster) was talking about Windows, not DOS. Weeboo0104 was actually right; you can control Windows 3.x entirely without a mouse with a few obvious exceptions like the paint program. But you could use the keyboard to operate the menus, move windows, click buttons etc. Each version of Windows since then has removed keyboard control until we have patheticness of Windows 10. Actually, that's a bit unfair because I think they improved things slightly between Windows 8.1 to 10.
Original MS-DOS 5.0 to 6.23 didn't have any ALT-TAB without Windows 3.x installed.
MS-DOS 4.00 to 6.22 did have the ability to ALT-TAB between programs using DOSSHELL.EXE. It was more limited that doing it in Windows in that all the programs had to share conventional memory (in the 640KB area). Here is a video showing how this works. Once you launch the programs from DOSSHELL, you can ALT-TAB between them.
I hope this helps you for your choice of the next operating system to use!
And yet they published everything that you needed to use to reproduce the tests and none of the other browser manufacturers demonstrated that it was wrong. They did however improve their battery usage in subsequent versions. Do you think that the browser makers would go to that trouble instead of taking the easier path and just producing their own results?
If you want to say they have cheated then show the evidence. And no, doing the tests of browsers that are four versions older than Microsoft used is not good enough.
It's unfair to say that the original claims were false based on the new tests. The new tests ran different versions of the browsers. Since Microsoft started bleating about battery life, the other browsers started paying attention to their power usage. Chrome has probably doubled its version number since MS first spoke about it. OK not really, but they have had enough time to close the gap (assuming one really existed).
The new test also ran on different hardware than Microsoft used. Most importantly, the Inspiron 15 7559 laptop uses an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M instead of Intel's chipset. If for some reason some video acceleration doesn't work on the GeForce, then that could indeed level the playing field as all browsers would be using the CPU to play the video and graphic work. (The opposite could be true too where the GeForce does a better job at accelerating all browsers more consistently than Intel did.)
All this isn't to say that some funny business didn't go on in Microsoft's test, but it seems less likely considering that they did publish their test procedure so that it could be duplicated by others. That said, it would not surprise me if there is such a wide variation in each run that Microsoft didn't choose the best one that supports their browser.
My personal opinion is that Edge does indeed result in lower battery usage, simply because it offers such a poor user experience that it makes you want to close the browser sooner than the other brands.
So what are you saying? That the proof that global warming is bullshit is that there is a possibility that there was global warming in the past? Are you saying that it is good enough to extrapolate the global climate from the couple of examples given by the grandparent? Because if climate scientists did that sort of thing to prove that climate change was real, deniers would quite rightly criticize them for it.
Seriously though, your whole argument stems from the idea that climate proxies are unreliable such that they are worthless. I can tell you that they are probably as accurate or better than any direct measurements made by people because they didn't have accurate thermometers or even standardized temperature scales back in the times that the OP discussed. Besides, even if you can't tell actual temperature by proxy, you can determine whether the temperature changes in two regions were of the same magnitude. And that is all the scientists need to be able to say that the warming of that period was not global, but peaked at different times in the various parts of the world.
Oh that's where it hiding is it? Where it will do absolutely no harm to anyone because unlike you I understand what is actually happening..
That scare point was debunked way back in 2014, shame you don't understand any of the real science involved, and just want to spread fear to please your high priests.
Wait, your understanding of the real science is based on a single paper that studied a fresh-water lake and you assume that this is identical to salt-water oceans? You are happy to ignore all the other scientific papers that don't match your preconceived notions, but will accept as the truth a study that isn't even about oceans!
No wonder your link had to be to wattsupwiththat.com and not some reputable site. Where is the follow-up studies that replicate this 2014 paper? Where has the same test been done on other lakes to see whether this is just a local phenomenon? Where is the evidence that the effects on fresh-water lakes is directly comparable with salt-water oceans? Do you really understand the science, or did you just trust the completely unbiased interpretation of Anthony Watts? (Yep, he sure doesn't have an agenda!)
Assuming what you say is true, that they simply saw effects from global warming that they could not predict then I have to wonder what else they got wrong.
Well, they got the physics of the mechanics of global warming right, and the temperature has increased faster than natural variability, so it seems they got the fundamentals right about climate change. So wonder all you like about what they have wrong, but don't imply that anything is wrong just because you weren't told of one of the consequences of climate change.
Elsewhere, you said that the IPCC got it wrong because they only mentioned the problems in the Antarctic and not the Arctic. In fact, they said that the reduction of extent and thickness of the sea ice will be beneficial to shipping. But that is not necessarily wrong, it just hasn't happened yet. What we are seeing now may simply be a step on the way towards a time where the ice levels are so low that ships will have better access. And don't forget, they were talking about general tourism, not ships that deliberately go deeper into the icy regions to study them.
I have to ask, does everything have to be "proof" of global warming or not? Can't something just be a random event?
That's a bit rich considering that you have used this occasion to question whether other unrelated aspects of the science are wrong because scientists supposedly didn't predict this scenario. Scientists are all about error bars and levels of confidence. They are the ones who have to keep chanting the mantra that weather is not the same as climate every time there is a cold day in summer. The "alarmists", as you call them, don't need to use outliers to prove their point because they have global, long-term trends on their side.
It is the deniers who have to cherry-pick the outliers to cast doubt on the science. It is they who kept using the year 1998 as their basis of proving that the climate was actually cooling during the 00s even though it was an outlier, El Nino year that was unrepresentative of the temperature of the years around it. Why didn't the deniers use 1997 or 1999 for their comparisons? Oh yes, because that would destroy their flimsy arguments.
And look here at how many people tried to say that this story was about an increase in ice and that this proved that global warming was a lie. Would you also say the same thing to them if this had been a case of the ice increasing? That it may have just been a random even that didn't prove that climate change was all a hoax?
But the fact that the ice is melting is not an isolated, random event. This is a continuation of what has been seen for years. There is only so many times that you can say that a continuing pattern is just a series of isolated events.
OK, I know that you are trolling, but here is the relevant section from the article:
Dr. Barber and his team of experts were able to use the state-of-the-art equipment onboard the Amundsen to confirm that a significant proportion of the sea ice present originated from the high Arctic.
He noted that, "Climate-related changes in Arctic sea ice not only reduce its extent and thickness but also increase its mobility meaning that ice conditions are likely to become more variable and severe conditions such as these will occur more often."
It totally makes sense that as the ice is reduced and thins, it will break apart more and start moving around. Since climate change doesn't mean the temperature simply gets uniformly warmer, but leads to larger swings of temperatures, it means that the ice breaks apart and then can refreeze into more chaotic configurations. It is less likely to be a large, predictable mass of ice. This makes it difficult for ships to safely navigate, as they have to contend with moving masses of ice as well as facing the possibility of being trapped in the ice as it refreezes behind them blocking of what had been a safe passage.
There was never any suggestion in the article that the problem was that there was more ice than before. But that doesn't stop the deniers trying to pretend that this is some problem with the concept of global warming. But then not looking at the facts and jumping to conclusions is what causes them to be deniers in the first place.
Like you, I have never been a big fan of Apple, and have wanted to move away from the world of iOS ever since I had the phone forced on me. But with the controls that they give to the user to limit what developers can do with your phone, it has become my preferred platform.
Apps on Android must show what permissions they require, but you can't do anything about it other than not install the app if you don't agree with one of those permissions. To be fair, this may have changed in later versions, but my Android devices are stuck with ancient versions. That's another thing that annoys me about the platform.
Slashdot Mirror
The result are monstrosities like ConsoleKit, Pulseaudio and SystemD.
Which developers behind those projects have come from the Windows world?
Defend them with actual arguments, I dare you.
There is no need to provide actual arguments when the original claim didn't make any arguments either. Surely the onus is on the original accuser to prove their EEE meme. The only link that your provided in your post is to an irrelevant gif about racism.
You say that Microsoft has a track record of this, but what has it actually successfully embraced, extended and extinguished? When they are contributing to an open source project (that can be forked at any time by anyone), how can they possibly extinguish the Linux kernel? We all have the access to the code.
If they extend the kernel as part of the main project those extensions are available to all, so it's not like they can only work for Microsoft customers. What evidence is there that any of the existing Linux contributions by Microsoft have any backdoors or patent traps in them, and how would it ever stand up in court if they did try to sue for patents citing the code that they submitted?
Have you ever heard a hurricane described as "not as bad as the last one" before it makes landfall?
Yes. Hurricane Jose.
I have yet to hear this or any other hurricane being described as the worst hurricane ever. Whenever one of these record-breaking weather phenomena occurs, it is always said that it was the worst on record. What you have done is reworded how they are described and then complained specifically about the rewording.
That is a total lie. I defy you to cite one quotation that shows that somebody thought that famine, drought, war or disease was a new concept and that it never existed prior to their generation.
If your losses are 50% you need a 50% higher investment.
That's fine if the build cost is only 50% of what it would be in closer, but more populated and valuable area. It's the same as the smartphone in your pocket that was built overseas and then shipped rather than been made locally. It still works out to be cheaper even with the shipping included.
According to the original post, the price that creimer wanted to spend was $129, which only gave a 10% improvement. It doesn't matter what the price of the original CPU was as a point of comparison, what matters is what someone is willing to pay now. So no, 10% is not interesting.
If you are concerned about price per unit of performance, then there is an obvious answer. Rather than get a more expensive CPU, simply forgo the upgrade completely. The performance difference will be barely noticeable while the cost savings in terms of time and money is substantial. Then you can wait and hope that the next round of CPUs at the preferred price point will provide more than a 10% improvement.
They are trying to hijack the ownership rights of works created using software.
Just repeating the claim doesn't make it right. Even if the injunction succeeds and monetary damages are awarded, the ownership of the films will still be in the clutches of Disney. Disney owns the films, it is just that they won't be able to distribute them (temporarily).
If this passes legal muster, the implications are very ugly. Like "copyrights on APIs" kind of ugly.
No, this isn't a precedent-setting case. It is quite normal for injunctions preventing the sale of offending products to be sought during legal cases.
Nice try, but that isn't talking about the same election!
If the Russians have information that Hillary is trying to hide, the American people should be demanding to know what it is, and thanking the Russians for providing it.
It's funny to hear this argument when every leak that is embarrassing to the Trump administration gets met with attempts by conservative pundits to redirect the discussion to finding and prosecuting the leakers. Apparently, demanding to know what Trump is trying to hide and thanking the leakers doesn't seem so important.
Then why did Jill Stein request a recount in three states?
Well they say the first stage is denial... or maybe it was just desperate hope that a manual recount would change the outcome. After all, why only do it in three states? If it was a real allegation of voter fraud, the she would not have said this:
But it certainly wasn't a widespread belief of the entire group called "the Left".
Deflect! Deflect! OK!
To be fair, it is not deflection if it is in direction response to someone else speculating what would happen if Obama did this.
...for people to start throwing molotov cocktails at Trump's properties
Or they will shoot up his local pizza parlor!
That is a lie. The left has never made a claim of voter fraud. That particular accusation came from Donald Trump himself prior to the election. He had no proof of this then, and still hasn't.
The claims the left made were that Russia influenced the elections. The hacking that went on as part of this influence campaign happened prior to the election (the email server). There is some evidence for this influence, as witnessed by the emails actually being released on Wikileaks and Donald Trump Jr's disclosure of his emails which spoke of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump.
None of those things matter. Maybe her people should clean up their own country so that the new generation has better opportunities to exploit with its potential. Islam isn't so keen on girls doing intellectual work..or work of any kind, except homemaker.
You say that none of these things matter, and then proceed to say what a big deal it is for a girl in Afghanistan to be able to do robotics. You completely contradict yourself in one single paragraph.
And what opportunity have these girls missed? Oh yes, going to the United States. In this case, it is not Islam that is holding these girls back.
That was under MS Windows 3.0, 3.1, 3.11 and higher, where you would start multiple MS-DOS shell
The summary (and grandparent poster) was talking about Windows, not DOS. Weeboo0104 was actually right; you can control Windows 3.x entirely without a mouse with a few obvious exceptions like the paint program. But you could use the keyboard to operate the menus, move windows, click buttons etc. Each version of Windows since then has removed keyboard control until we have patheticness of Windows 10. Actually, that's a bit unfair because I think they improved things slightly between Windows 8.1 to 10.
Original MS-DOS 5.0 to 6.23 didn't have any ALT-TAB without Windows 3.x installed.
MS-DOS 4.00 to 6.22 did have the ability to ALT-TAB between programs using DOSSHELL.EXE. It was more limited that doing it in Windows in that all the programs had to share conventional memory (in the 640KB area). Here is a video showing how this works. Once you launch the programs from DOSSHELL, you can ALT-TAB between them.
I hope this helps you for your choice of the next operating system to use!
And yet they published everything that you needed to use to reproduce the tests and none of the other browser manufacturers demonstrated that it was wrong. They did however improve their battery usage in subsequent versions. Do you think that the browser makers would go to that trouble instead of taking the easier path and just producing their own results?
If you want to say they have cheated then show the evidence. And no, doing the tests of browsers that are four versions older than Microsoft used is not good enough.
It's unfair to say that the original claims were false based on the new tests. The new tests ran different versions of the browsers. Since Microsoft started bleating about battery life, the other browsers started paying attention to their power usage. Chrome has probably doubled its version number since MS first spoke about it. OK not really, but they have had enough time to close the gap (assuming one really existed).
The new test also ran on different hardware than Microsoft used. Most importantly, the Inspiron 15 7559 laptop uses an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M instead of Intel's chipset. If for some reason some video acceleration doesn't work on the GeForce, then that could indeed level the playing field as all browsers would be using the CPU to play the video and graphic work. (The opposite could be true too where the GeForce does a better job at accelerating all browsers more consistently than Intel did.)
All this isn't to say that some funny business didn't go on in Microsoft's test, but it seems less likely considering that they did publish their test procedure so that it could be duplicated by others. That said, it would not surprise me if there is such a wide variation in each run that Microsoft didn't choose the best one that supports their browser.
My personal opinion is that Edge does indeed result in lower battery usage, simply because it offers such a poor user experience that it makes you want to close the browser sooner than the other brands.
So what are you saying? That the proof that global warming is bullshit is that there is a possibility that there was global warming in the past? Are you saying that it is good enough to extrapolate the global climate from the couple of examples given by the grandparent? Because if climate scientists did that sort of thing to prove that climate change was real, deniers would quite rightly criticize them for it.
Seriously though, your whole argument stems from the idea that climate proxies are unreliable such that they are worthless. I can tell you that they are probably as accurate or better than any direct measurements made by people because they didn't have accurate thermometers or even standardized temperature scales back in the times that the OP discussed. Besides, even if you can't tell actual temperature by proxy, you can determine whether the temperature changes in two regions were of the same magnitude. And that is all the scientists need to be able to say that the warming of that period was not global, but peaked at different times in the various parts of the world.
Oh that's where it hiding is it? Where it will do absolutely no harm to anyone because unlike you I understand what is actually happening..
That scare point was debunked way back in 2014, shame you don't understand any of the real science involved, and just want to spread fear to please your high priests.
Wait, your understanding of the real science is based on a single paper that studied a fresh-water lake and you assume that this is identical to salt-water oceans? You are happy to ignore all the other scientific papers that don't match your preconceived notions, but will accept as the truth a study that isn't even about oceans!
No wonder your link had to be to wattsupwiththat.com and not some reputable site. Where is the follow-up studies that replicate this 2014 paper? Where has the same test been done on other lakes to see whether this is just a local phenomenon? Where is the evidence that the effects on fresh-water lakes is directly comparable with salt-water oceans? Do you really understand the science, or did you just trust the completely unbiased interpretation of Anthony Watts? (Yep, he sure doesn't have an agenda!)
That was regional warming. The G in AGW stands for global.
Assuming what you say is true, that they simply saw effects from global warming that they could not predict then I have to wonder what else they got wrong.
Well, they got the physics of the mechanics of global warming right, and the temperature has increased faster than natural variability, so it seems they got the fundamentals right about climate change. So wonder all you like about what they have wrong, but don't imply that anything is wrong just because you weren't told of one of the consequences of climate change.
Elsewhere, you said that the IPCC got it wrong because they only mentioned the problems in the Antarctic and not the Arctic. In fact, they said that the reduction of extent and thickness of the sea ice will be beneficial to shipping. But that is not necessarily wrong, it just hasn't happened yet. What we are seeing now may simply be a step on the way towards a time where the ice levels are so low that ships will have better access. And don't forget, they were talking about general tourism, not ships that deliberately go deeper into the icy regions to study them.
I have to ask, does everything have to be "proof" of global warming or not? Can't something just be a random event?
That's a bit rich considering that you have used this occasion to question whether other unrelated aspects of the science are wrong because scientists supposedly didn't predict this scenario. Scientists are all about error bars and levels of confidence. They are the ones who have to keep chanting the mantra that weather is not the same as climate every time there is a cold day in summer. The "alarmists", as you call them, don't need to use outliers to prove their point because they have global, long-term trends on their side.
It is the deniers who have to cherry-pick the outliers to cast doubt on the science. It is they who kept using the year 1998 as their basis of proving that the climate was actually cooling during the 00s even though it was an outlier, El Nino year that was unrepresentative of the temperature of the years around it. Why didn't the deniers use 1997 or 1999 for their comparisons? Oh yes, because that would destroy their flimsy arguments.
And look here at how many people tried to say that this story was about an increase in ice and that this proved that global warming was a lie. Would you also say the same thing to them if this had been a case of the ice increasing? That it may have just been a random even that didn't prove that climate change was all a hoax?
But the fact that the ice is melting is not an isolated, random event. This is a continuation of what has been seen for years. There is only so many times that you can say that a continuing pattern is just a series of isolated events.
OK, I know that you are trolling, but here is the relevant section from the article:
It totally makes sense that as the ice is reduced and thins, it will break apart more and start moving around. Since climate change doesn't mean the temperature simply gets uniformly warmer, but leads to larger swings of temperatures, it means that the ice breaks apart and then can refreeze into more chaotic configurations. It is less likely to be a large, predictable mass of ice. This makes it difficult for ships to safely navigate, as they have to contend with moving masses of ice as well as facing the possibility of being trapped in the ice as it refreezes behind them blocking of what had been a safe passage.
There was never any suggestion in the article that the problem was that there was more ice than before. But that doesn't stop the deniers trying to pretend that this is some problem with the concept of global warming. But then not looking at the facts and jumping to conclusions is what causes them to be deniers in the first place.
Like you, I have never been a big fan of Apple, and have wanted to move away from the world of iOS ever since I had the phone forced on me. But with the controls that they give to the user to limit what developers can do with your phone, it has become my preferred platform.
Apps on Android must show what permissions they require, but you can't do anything about it other than not install the app if you don't agree with one of those permissions. To be fair, this may have changed in later versions, but my Android devices are stuck with ancient versions. That's another thing that annoys me about the platform.