You're kidding. You actually believe there were two people in a garden called Adam and Eve, with a fruit tree and a snake, and that's how the human race started? Really? You believe that?
If soylentnews is working so great, why do you people keep posting the link on slashdot?
You people? What is this, apartheid?
I was no big enthusiast for Soylent news. I wondered over there just occasionally, when I'd run out of interesting stuff on slashdot. And then there was a comment I wanted to make so I finally signed up. I linked to it because you claimed all such alternatives had failed. And you were wrong. No other reason. AFAIR it was the first time I ever mentioned it, and it's not in my sig. I'm not pushing the site.
Rather it seems like you are the one that's being a fanboy for one site over another.
You didn't write that quote but that is what I and talking about. Please stay on topic.
Then why did you say I did. It's not off-topic to point out your error of attribution to me. It's rather pathetic of you to suggest it is. Especially whilst pointing out a typo in me tagging up a quote tag. Pathetic and hypocritical.
Sorry but your "reality distortion field"
It's you that's making the errors. Not just in attribution, but not knowing the corporate structure at Apple. A fundamental mistake when you are trying to pontificate on it. Reality is on my side.
You have no idea what Steve Jobs would have done.
I'm telling you what he did. He had complete power over product decisions. And claim to the contrary by you is just showing your ignorance. And that's quite a lot of ignorance you have there.
Yes. However you can't argue with Apple's success from not cutting corners. Those tech companies making what they think are reasonable compromises are on the whole not doing very well.
You haven't thought it through - CO2 doesn't care *where* it comes from - it's spectral properties exist regardless if it came from a burning plant, outgassed from the ocean, or from the exhalation of respiration.
OK, so you really don't know what carbon neutral means. Your incorrect definition would mean that there was no such thing as carbon-neutral fuels. Yet there are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
Here's a rule of thumb so you don't make a ass of yourself again. If fossil products don't contribute to the carbon in a thing, it;s usually carbon-neutral.
Oh, it's MSU.RSS now is it? Funny how every data series on that page shows warming from 1998 to the latest data, except MSU.RSS.
MSU.RSS being satellite microwave data, and the NOAA paper to which refer doesn't specify that. Indeed it only mentions surface temperatures.
So, not only are you cherry picking 1998 as a start year, you also have to cherry pick a specific dataset, that wasn't the one mentioned, as all the others prove you wrong.
At that level of cherry picking there are only two possibilities. Either you know you are presenting fraudulent claims, or you are a gullible fool that listens to those that do.
Balderdash. Every creature that respirates and exhales CO2 is by definition not carbon neutral.
You haven't thought it through. Where does the carbon in a butterfly come from? Nectar. From a plant. Where does a plant's carbon come from? CO2 in the atmosphere. It's carbon neutral. In fact if the butterfly ends up buried rather than decomposing on the surface, it may be a miniature carbon sink.
Evidence? They've *asserted* that they've detected AGW of significant magnitude, but provide no necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement to that effect. They make a claim, but it's not a scientific one.
Says the man who can't even work out that a butterfly is carbon neutral.
You seem to think that it means that you've got a 1 in 20 chance of being right.
No, that's not it either.
More specifically, NOAA 2008 is asserting that given an observation of 15+ years of no statistically significant warming, but rising CO2, it only has a 1 in 20 chance of being right. If you believe NOAA 2008 is indeed an exemplar of AGW science, then there's only a 5% chance you're right.
Not quite. Because there has been warming over the last 15 years. So it's still in the 95%, not outside it.
From your original post. "Someone proposed a better idea and Linus immediately admits his idea was worse and moves on. That was also one of Steve Jobs' greatest talents,"
No, that wasn't my post.
So add VPs to the list of people who can override Jobs' decisions and do things.
No, a VP can't overrule a CEO. That's a fact. And it's a fact that Jobs heard whet they said, and allowed them to do it, delegating the responsibility for it's success to them. The actual words used is just an anecdote.
When Jobs came back to Apple he was part of a team that made decisions. It was no longer Apple === Steve Jobs.
You're wrong. Jobs had final say on every product when he came back. He hadn't had that power in the time before he was pushed out, and wouldn't have accepted the CEO offer without that power.
I didn't say Jobs was so great. I just pointed out the falsity of your smears.
According to this article the decision on iPod for Windows came about exactly as I described. From the article: "We argued with Steve a bunch [about putting iTunes on Windows], and he said no," Rubenstein recalls. "Finally, Phil Schiller and I said 'we're going to do it.' And Steve said, 'F#@k you guys, do whatever you want. You're responsible.' And he stormed out of the room."
Given that neither Schiller nor Rubenstein were ever on Apple's board of directors, but were employees below Jobs, your current quote actually blows you previous comment out of the water. They were not the board, and had no power to overrule him.
Why not? It makes sense to do something different so as not to confuse binding with assignment or comparison. Wait, you did realise it wasn't assignment, didn't you?
When Steve Jobs was in control of NeXT he decreed that the cube must be a perfect cube. Pressing, the most efficient way to create the case, works best with the side a couple of degrees off. Most people would not notice the difference
But this eye for detail that others would miss is one of the reasons for Jobs ultimate success (Taking Apple for near bankruptcy to the most valuable tech company in the world.). You are talking literally about cutting corners. And not doing so is why Apple under Jobs succeeded.
Your claim that it added a couple of hundred dollars to the cost is apocryphal.
When Jobs came back to Apple they had a Board that could stand up to Jobs and make decisions counter to Jobs' wishes. The Board had been doing it for years while Jobs was failing at NeXT. I doubt Jobs "changed his mind". More likely the Board overrode him.
Bullshit. Jobs had been back at Apple 4 years before then. Product decisions were made by Jobs not the board. He would never have taken on CEO without the authority to make all product decisions.
Yes, only hardly anyone ever does it with projects as massive as the Linux Kernel.
Massive... Kernel
Seems like a contradiction.
or heck, even the many half-assed and failed attempts at forking off Slashdot over the Beta issue.
http://soylentnews.org/ seems to be working just fine. Neither half-assed, nor failed. Fewer posters, for sure. But a far more friendly vibe than today's Slashdot.
Because these lanes have not just one purpose, but several. Taxis are a part of public transport. They make it more possible for people to use trains, planes and busses for the major part of their journey, and then a taxi to fill in the missing last part of the journey. And they reduce the pressure on car parks and road side parking spaces that would otherwise be there if people drove their own car. That's why they are encouraged.
Screens are cheap. And will be more than paid for by saved fuel over the lifetime of the car.
plus if you have to look to the left instead of a left mirror or to the right instead of a right mirror, what has actually been gained?
You seem to have lost sight of the original motivation - to save the aerodynamic inefficiency of sideview mirrors. Other possible advantages are fringe benefits.
The reason to have them left and right is partly because it's better to have evolution rather than revolution in the driving interface, as people drive though habit, and mistakes can be fatal. But moreso because when looking in the sideview mirrors (or their camera replacement), one should also look out of the window to that side. It's a standard part of driving.
Of course AGW happens in the trivial sense - BGW (butterfly global warming), caused by CO2 emissions from butterflies also happens in the trivial sense.
No. Butterflies are carbon neutral.
The question is, do we have any reason to believe that AGW (or BGW) is of any significant magnitude that can be detected within natural climate change?
Yes. The scientists have helpfully collected all the evidence in the IPCC AR5.
I'd rather bet on the 19 in 20 chance
I'm beginning to worry that you really think that's what the 95% confidence interval we mentioned means.
The Big Bang is amazingly well understood... Now who doesn't understand science?
You. It's clear from the fact that you think the big bang is amazingly well understood. No one knows the cause of the big bang. No one knows where all this stuff that we call matter came from. We don't even know when it happened more accurately than a window of tens of millions of years. And no one is even speculating what happened in the first fraction of a second after the big bang, because no one has come up with any explanation that is consistent with relativity.
For sure we know the universe is expanding from a singularity, but that's no more than knowing that the climatic temperature is rising. We understand the causes of global warming far better than we do the causes of the big bang.
If you aren't aware how many contradicting theories various cosmologists have, nor the extent to which none of them know who's right, I refer you to "Horizon: What happened before the Big Bang." If you can find it. You'll find it interesting.
You keep saying the science is "settled". You don't seem to understand what that word means. Millions of people disagree on this, so clearly it isn't settled at all.
I know exactly what it means as regards science. We say that the science is settled, or has reached a consensus, when there are have been plenty of peer reviewed papers in scientific journals that say there is such a phenomenon, but no one is presenting any that contradict it.
What "Million's of people" think is irrelevant. Otherwise we'd have to accept that catholicism and islam have scientific merit. So I'm afraid you've just illustrated that you don't know what settled means.
Evolution is a theory, because that isn't settled either.
Ha ha! That also shows how little of science you know. Non-scientists think a theory means something that hasn't been proved. But there is no such thing as proof in science. Many scientific theories are certain. There is overwhelming evidence for them. They are settled.
What you think theory means, scientists use the word hypothesis.
You know what's settled? Gravity's pull on Earth.
What you're probably thinking of here is a scientific law. But that only means something that's been observed, without counter example, for which an explanation of cause is not attempted. Evolution and AGW will never become laws, not because of a lack of certainty, but because they propose mechanisms to explain the observations.
Slashdot Mirror
Sites check the user-agent and rich guys (IOS) are shown a higher price for the same objects, as it has been noticed quite a few times.
That would be interesting if true. Do you have a link to a reputable source with actual examples? Or is this just a myth?
You're kidding. You actually believe there were two people in a garden called Adam and Eve, with a fruit tree and a snake, and that's how the human race started? Really? You believe that?
Atheism isn't a faith. Though religious types like to believe it is. Just another of their false beliefs.
"The GNU crap". :-)
It's amazing how quite the FOSS community will throw Stallman under the bus, if the alternative is accepting parity with Apple's security bug.
If soylentnews is working so great, why do you people keep posting the link on slashdot?
You people? What is this, apartheid?
I was no big enthusiast for Soylent news. I wondered over there just occasionally, when I'd run out of interesting stuff on slashdot. And then there was a comment I wanted to make so I finally signed up. I linked to it because you claimed all such alternatives had failed. And you were wrong. No other reason. AFAIR it was the first time I ever mentioned it, and it's not in my sig. I'm not pushing the site.
Rather it seems like you are the one that's being a fanboy for one site over another.
You didn't write that quote but that is what I and talking about. Please stay on topic.
Then why did you say I did. It's not off-topic to point out your error of attribution to me. It's rather pathetic of you to suggest it is. Especially whilst pointing out a typo in me tagging up a quote tag. Pathetic and hypocritical.
Sorry but your "reality distortion field"
It's you that's making the errors. Not just in attribution, but not knowing the corporate structure at Apple. A fundamental mistake when you are trying to pontificate on it. Reality is on my side.
You have no idea what Steve Jobs would have done.
I'm telling you what he did. He had complete power over product decisions. And claim to the contrary by you is just showing your ignorance. And that's quite a lot of ignorance you have there.
Yes. However you can't argue with Apple's success from not cutting corners. Those tech companies making what they think are reasonable compromises are on the whole not doing very well.
You haven't thought it through - CO2 doesn't care *where* it comes from - it's spectral properties exist regardless if it came from a burning plant, outgassed from the ocean, or from the exhalation of respiration.
OK, so you really don't know what carbon neutral means. Your incorrect definition would mean that there was no such thing as carbon-neutral fuels. Yet there are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
Here's a rule of thumb so you don't make a ass of yourself again. If fossil products don't contribute to the carbon in a thing, it;s usually carbon-neutral.
Look at the data - http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p...
Oh, it's MSU.RSS now is it? Funny how every data series on that page shows warming from 1998 to the latest data, except MSU.RSS.
MSU.RSS being satellite microwave data, and the NOAA paper to which refer doesn't specify that. Indeed it only mentions surface temperatures.
So, not only are you cherry picking 1998 as a start year, you also have to cherry pick a specific dataset, that wasn't the one mentioned, as all the others prove you wrong.
At that level of cherry picking there are only two possibilities. Either you know you are presenting fraudulent claims, or you are a gullible fool that listens to those that do.
Balderdash. Every creature that respirates and exhales CO2 is by definition not carbon neutral.
You haven't thought it through. Where does the carbon in a butterfly come from? Nectar. From a plant. Where does a plant's carbon come from? CO2 in the atmosphere. It's carbon neutral. In fact if the butterfly ends up buried rather than decomposing on the surface, it may be a miniature carbon sink.
Evidence? They've *asserted* that they've detected AGW of significant magnitude, but provide no necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement to that effect. They make a claim, but it's not a scientific one.
Says the man who can't even work out that a butterfly is carbon neutral.
You seem to think that it means that you've got a 1 in 20 chance of being right.
No, that's not it either.
More specifically, NOAA 2008 is asserting that given an observation of 15+ years of no statistically significant warming, but rising CO2, it only has a 1 in 20 chance of being right. If you believe NOAA 2008 is indeed an exemplar of AGW science, then there's only a 5% chance you're right.
Not quite. Because there has been warming over the last 15 years. So it's still in the 95%, not outside it.
From your original post.
"Someone proposed a better idea and Linus immediately admits his idea was worse and moves on. That was also one of Steve Jobs' greatest talents,"
No, that wasn't my post.
So add VPs to the list of people who can override Jobs' decisions and do things.
No, a VP can't overrule a CEO. That's a fact. And it's a fact that Jobs heard whet they said, and allowed them to do it, delegating the responsibility for it's success to them. The actual words used is just an anecdote.
When Jobs came back to Apple he was part of a team that made decisions. It was no longer Apple === Steve Jobs.
You're wrong. Jobs had final say on every product when he came back. He hadn't had that power in the time before he was pushed out, and wouldn't have accepted the CEO offer without that power.
I did 9 hours once. And I don't think it was safe.
If Jobs was so great
I didn't say Jobs was so great. I just pointed out the falsity of your smears.
According to this article the decision on iPod for Windows came about exactly as I described. From the article:
"We argued with Steve a bunch [about putting iTunes on Windows], and he said no," Rubenstein recalls. "Finally, Phil Schiller and I said 'we're going to do it.' And Steve said, 'F#@k you guys, do whatever you want. You're responsible.' And he stormed out of the room."
Given that neither Schiller nor Rubenstein were ever on Apple's board of directors, but were employees below Jobs, your current quote actually blows you previous comment out of the water. They were not the board, and had no power to overrule him.
F# is a functional programming language. C# is an imperative programming language.
It's like the difference between a spreadsheet and a programmable calculator.
"let" statements -- really?
Why not? It makes sense to do something different so as not to confuse binding with assignment or comparison. Wait, you did realise it wasn't assignment, didn't you?
You'll do that anyway.
No, I was quoting the time limits for commercial drivers. It's not illegal for you to do more. Just not safe.
And by the way, the maths I did didn't even allow for a single rest stop.
When Steve Jobs was in control of NeXT he decreed that the cube must be a perfect cube. Pressing, the most efficient way to create the case, works best with the side a couple of degrees off. Most people would not notice the difference
But this eye for detail that others would miss is one of the reasons for Jobs ultimate success (Taking Apple for near bankruptcy to the most valuable tech company in the world.). You are talking literally about cutting corners. And not doing so is why Apple under Jobs succeeded.
Your claim that it added a couple of hundred dollars to the cost is apocryphal.
When Jobs came back to Apple they had a Board that could stand up to Jobs and make decisions counter to Jobs' wishes. The Board had been doing it for years while Jobs was failing at NeXT. I doubt Jobs "changed his mind". More likely the Board overrode him.
Bullshit. Jobs had been back at Apple 4 years before then. Product decisions were made by Jobs not the board. He would never have taken on CEO without the authority to make all product decisions.
But hey, a hater has to hate, eh?
Yes, only hardly anyone ever does it with projects as massive as the Linux Kernel.
Massive ... Kernel
Seems like a contradiction.
or heck, even the many half-assed and failed attempts at forking off Slashdot over the Beta issue.
http://soylentnews.org/ seems to be working just fine. Neither half-assed, nor failed. Fewer posters, for sure. But a far more friendly vibe than today's Slashdot.
If car manufacturers don't want to be made fun of then they shouldn't submit their product for testing to Top Gear.
And indeed I think that's exactly what Elon Musk is doing now. No Model S test so far, and I don't expect one in the future.
How old are you?
Very few people would want to. And it's not safe.
In fact in the EU, maximum legal drive time is 9 hours. Which if driven exclusively at 70mph would only get you 610 miles.
Even in the US, maximum daily drive time is 13 hours. Which again, even at the theoretical maximum 70mph would leave you short by 90 miles.
Most people would fly, or depending on the country, take a train.
Because these lanes have not just one purpose, but several. Taxis are a part of public transport. They make it more possible for people to use trains, planes and busses for the major part of their journey, and then a taxi to fill in the missing last part of the journey. And they reduce the pressure on car parks and road side parking spaces that would otherwise be there if people drove their own car. That's why they are encouraged.
Having multiple screens adds to the cost
Screens are cheap. And will be more than paid for by saved fuel over the lifetime of the car.
plus if you have to look to the left instead of a left mirror or to the right instead of a right mirror, what has actually been gained?
You seem to have lost sight of the original motivation - to save the aerodynamic inefficiency of sideview mirrors. Other possible advantages are fringe benefits.
The reason to have them left and right is partly because it's better to have evolution rather than revolution in the driving interface, as people drive though habit, and mistakes can be fatal. But moreso because when looking in the sideview mirrors (or their camera replacement), one should also look out of the window to that side. It's a standard part of driving.
Of course AGW happens in the trivial sense - BGW (butterfly global warming), caused by CO2 emissions from butterflies also happens in the trivial sense.
No. Butterflies are carbon neutral.
The question is, do we have any reason to believe that AGW (or BGW) is of any significant magnitude that can be detected within natural climate change?
Yes. The scientists have helpfully collected all the evidence in the IPCC AR5.
I'd rather bet on the 19 in 20 chance
I'm beginning to worry that you really think that's what the 95% confidence interval we mentioned means.
The Big Bang is amazingly well understood...
Now who doesn't understand science?
You. It's clear from the fact that you think the big bang is amazingly well understood. No one knows the cause of the big bang. No one knows where all this stuff that we call matter came from. We don't even know when it happened more accurately than a window of tens of millions of years. And no one is even speculating what happened in the first fraction of a second after the big bang, because no one has come up with any explanation that is consistent with relativity.
For sure we know the universe is expanding from a singularity, but that's no more than knowing that the climatic temperature is rising. We understand the causes of global warming far better than we do the causes of the big bang.
If you aren't aware how many contradicting theories various cosmologists have, nor the extent to which none of them know who's right, I refer you to "Horizon: What happened before the Big Bang." If you can find it. You'll find it interesting.
You keep saying the science is "settled". You don't seem to understand what that word means. Millions of people disagree on this, so clearly it isn't settled at all.
I know exactly what it means as regards science. We say that the science is settled, or has reached a consensus, when there are have been plenty of peer reviewed papers in scientific journals that say there is such a phenomenon, but no one is presenting any that contradict it.
What "Million's of people" think is irrelevant. Otherwise we'd have to accept that catholicism and islam have scientific merit. So I'm afraid you've just illustrated that you don't know what settled means.
Evolution is a theory, because that isn't settled either.
Ha ha! That also shows how little of science you know. Non-scientists think a theory means something that hasn't been proved. But there is no such thing as proof in science. Many scientific theories are certain. There is overwhelming evidence for them. They are settled.
What you think theory means, scientists use the word hypothesis.
You know what's settled? Gravity's pull on Earth.
What you're probably thinking of here is a scientific law. But that only means something that's been observed, without counter example, for which an explanation of cause is not attempted. Evolution and AGW will never become laws, not because of a lack of certainty, but because they propose mechanisms to explain the observations.