Tablets are already showing themselves to be far more popular than Smart Cars. And they're only 3 years old versus the 20 years Smart's been expanding their market.
Tablets are a big growth market, and by the time they reach saturation, their ownership is going to look like cars in general, not just Smart cars. Tablets provide more utility to the average person than you are giving them credit for.
And "car and trailer" is a base product plus occasional add-on, and thus matches a tablet that can be docked far better than your suggestion of a laptop. And similarly car+trailer is a relatively rare choice. And laptops are mainstream, more popular these days than desktops, so it doesn't work that way either.
Why would I be afraid of guns? I live in a country where they are virtually non-existant. And when I lived in a country that did allow handguns, I went along with a friend to a shooting range a couple of times. Gun law/ownership in America has no practical effect on me whatsoever.
My opinions are nothing to do with fear, and everything to do with being able to see the American fascination and love of guns as being both bizarre and self-harming. For them. It's like having a friend who's an alcoholic, and trying to help.
Of course it does. Go to a shooting range and take a poll and you're going to come up 99% Republican or Libertarian. At an NRA meeting, 99.9%.
Of course there are examples of liberal gun owners. And there are even conservatives that vote Democrat. People are individuals and most don't hit a certain category in some way or another. But statistically, the set "gun owners" is almost entirely contained in the set "conservatives".
Which isn't "working perfectly". Pinch zoom gives complete freedom of zoom, both amount and center. The horribleness you've suggested is a stepped zoom, from a fixed center.
And then we get to the much more common and not even multitouch gesture of flicking a list of a web page in order to scroll a big distance. It's not something that you can do with any control with a mouse.
Scroll wheel? What about horizontal flicks and swipes.
Yes, we're talking Apple. So quality of interface matters. Android users might be willing to put up with shit because that's what they're used to.
Some people imagine they can combine the car experience and the truck experience by getting a trailer for their car. And indeed for some people, who only very occasionally need almost truck like capacity, a trailer pulled behind a car can do the job. But it's a tiny fraction of people. Most people drive cars or trucks.
There's always a new processor with more performance and lower power requirements on the horizon. And each one simply soaked up making PCs more powerful or mobile devices smaller with longer battery life. They are not used to make a new combined device that is just as good as yesterdays specialist devices.
Clearly you've never played with the iOS emulator with a mouse. No, it really doesn't work perfectly. For example, have you ever tried inputting on a screen keyboard by pointing using a mouse.
And some multi-touch gestures are not a optional. Try navigating a map intended for touch when you've only got a mouse. There's a way around it, with a keyboard modifier. But then you haven't got a keyboard, only a mouse. And it feels unnatural, and limits you to only zooming from the center.
Every input type has it's own characteristics, and good UIs are designed to match them. Don't assume something is OK unless you've tried it.
Anthony Watts of the infamous Watts Up With That website also claims to be a meteorologist. And he spews falsehoods every week. The only thing I can suggest is that meteorologists don't know as much about climate as you might expect.
But here's the thing. It really does depend on the data. At the end of the day there is such as thing as statistical significance, and it will vary depending on what precisely you are talking about, and the specific data set. It's something for statisticians and climate scientists to discuss. It's not for laypeople to pick their period according to what they are trying to prove at the time.
But for climate in general 30 years really is the norm, and it hasn't changed. For example it's what Wikipedia has in it's definition, and thanks to Wiki's history feature, you can see evidence that it's been that way since at 2004, when the entry was still young.
Whenever anyone tries to use a shorter period than 30 years for climate, you really have to suspect their motives. What are they trying to prove with their cherry picking?
As I stated in my other reply above, NOAA has publicly disagreed with you.
NOAA? NOAA has formed no part of the discussion between you and I. And there is no disagreement between my position and NOAAs.
You may have confused me with khayman80, who's ripping your arguments to pieces elsewhere. And to whom you've just had to admit you were wrong. Just as you had to admit to me yesterday that you were wrong about UK gun stats.
Your problem Jane, is that you start out with what you want to believe, then root around for sources to back it up. And when those sources are shown to be wrong, usually because they've been misrepresented by the NRA or WUWT, you are slow to admit your mistake.
I don't understand why people like you are not interested in the truth, but only in those things that back up their political ideas. Why you can't see that you are being misled by the web sites you read.
You may not remember all the claims that "a few years do not make climate, we need at least 10 years of data..." but I sure do.
All the claims from who? I once heard someone claim the moon was made of cheese. Does that make the people who have always said the moon is made of rock and dust somehow wrong?
Doesn't it bother you that even IPCC admits to a "17-year lack of warming", yet CO2 has continued to steadily rise? It doesn't fit their model, man. And they even admit that they can't explain why.
I can explain why, just as the engineer in The Australian newspaper that you are quoting can and did in the first paragraph. 17 years isn't anywhere near approaching the >30 years that are needed to establish a climate trend.
Well it's tutorials all the way till you escape from the shiny areas and get into the service tunnels. Then it's purely using what you've learned. But the tutorials themselves are fun.
This isn't a matter of honesty or transparency, it's a question of statistical significance. It's a rule of thumb that it takes about 30 years of weather observations to establish what a given climate is like. Shorter than that and there is too much noise in the signal. Heck, El Nino alone may take 12 years to come around, and it's effects won't be the same every time.
A model is a completely different thing,statistically. You can run it as many times as you like.
The scientists, operate according to statistical and scientific method. To accuse them of inconsistency is deeply hypocritical, given the cherry picking behaviour of the deniers.
Sure, things date. I saw Fantasia just once, on the big screen at a film festival. And because the festival were good about putting the film in context of it's achievement, I could appreciate it for what an achievement it was when it was made.
It's a bit like Laurel and Hardy. It doesn't make many people laugh out loud these days. But you can still appreciate how it had people rolling in the aisles at the time.
I wonder what people will make of our best, innovative stuff in 70 years time?!
Did you have a point to make other than not realising the difference between actual measured climate (real world, single time line, unrepeatable), and models - (run them over and over again.)?
It's not clear whether you think the usual 30 year minimum for reference to climate rather than weather is too long or too short. It reads like you are arguing both.
I'd suggest climate scientists know rather better than you do either way. That at least is not up for debate, especially not by amateurs.
The moving people aren't "smoothed out" by time --- so something odd is happening if their world is time-averaged differently than their bodies.
You're being quite literal. Art isn't literal, it combines ideas. It hints at things.
I don't know what Randall has planned; however, if the result of the characters' research/exploration endeavors turns out to be a simple elementary-school picture of the terrestrial hydrological cycle (rather than something more of a philosophical/metaphysical allegory), I'd be a bit surprised.
That wasn't what I was alluding to. I'd be gobsmacked and disappointed too if it was that. But I don't want to spell out what I think it is about.
The other 13 books in Baum's Oz series indicate a separate existence and continuity for Oz outside of Dorothy's mind.
Indeed. That's also clear from the current OZ movie. Again I was hinting, nor trying to prove or argue something.
Well, their oceans and rivers (and general hydrological cycle) seems to have something going on that the characters (and us viewers) don't understand
That sounds very terrestrial to me.
A monotonically rising ocean (with no waves)?
Time flattens out short term fluctuations and leaves the trend.
Uncertainty about whether rivers are "broken"? Unknown gigantic rivers within a relatively short walk of where they live? Something tells me we're not in Kansas anymore.
Not knowing. Questioning. Researching. Something that takes a lot of time.
Did Dorothy leave Kansas? Or was she at home all the time. Those faces looked awfully familiar didn't they.
Slashdot Mirror
"Deep inspection" would only be needed the first time an executable is run. It's easy and quick to check a file hasn't changed since last time.
Not all viruses exploit security weaknesses, some are just malicious programs that idiot users run.
No, those would be trojan horses. Actual viruses can only work on modern OSs by exploiting security holes.
Brother, can you spare a dime?
Tablets are already showing themselves to be far more popular than Smart Cars. And they're only 3 years old versus the 20 years Smart's been expanding their market.
Tablets are a big growth market, and by the time they reach saturation, their ownership is going to look like cars in general, not just Smart cars. Tablets provide more utility to the average person than you are giving them credit for.
And "car and trailer" is a base product plus occasional add-on, and thus matches a tablet that can be docked far better than your suggestion of a laptop. And similarly car+trailer is a relatively rare choice. And laptops are mainstream, more popular these days than desktops, so it doesn't work that way either.
No, the original analogy works better.
Why would I be afraid of guns? I live in a country where they are virtually non-existant. And when I lived in a country that did allow handguns, I went along with a friend to a shooting range a couple of times. Gun law/ownership in America has no practical effect on me whatsoever.
My opinions are nothing to do with fear, and everything to do with being able to see the American fascination and love of guns as being both bizarre and self-harming. For them. It's like having a friend who's an alcoholic, and trying to help.
It has nothing to do with conservatism.
Of course it does. Go to a shooting range and take a poll and you're going to come up 99% Republican or Libertarian. At an NRA meeting, 99.9%.
Of course there are examples of liberal gun owners. And there are even conservatives that vote Democrat. People are individuals and most don't hit a certain category in some way or another. But statistically, the set "gun owners" is almost entirely contained in the set "conservatives".
But my comment on conservatism being the politics of fear is far wider than just gun ownership. And it's not my opinion, that says it, it's science:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201104/conservatives-big-fear-brain-study-finds
Conservatives brains work differently. Their genetics make them concentrate on fear responses.
Which isn't "working perfectly". Pinch zoom gives complete freedom of zoom, both amount and center.
The horribleness you've suggested is a stepped zoom, from a fixed center.
And then we get to the much more common and not even multitouch gesture of flicking a list of a web page in order to scroll a big distance. It's not something that you can do with any control with a mouse.
Scroll wheel? What about horizontal flicks and swipes.
Yes, we're talking Apple. So quality of interface matters. Android users might be willing to put up with shit because that's what they're used to.
Some people imagine they can combine the car experience and the truck experience by getting a trailer for their car. And indeed for some people, who only very occasionally need almost truck like capacity, a trailer pulled behind a car can do the job. But it's a tiny fraction of people. Most people drive cars or trucks.
There's always a new processor with more performance and lower power requirements on the horizon. And each one simply soaked up making PCs more powerful or mobile devices smaller with longer battery life. They are not used to make a new combined device that is just as good as yesterdays specialist devices.
Clearly you've never played with the iOS emulator with a mouse. No, it really doesn't work perfectly. For example, have you ever tried inputting on a screen keyboard by pointing using a mouse.
And some multi-touch gestures are not a optional. Try navigating a map intended for touch when you've only got a mouse. There's a way around it, with a keyboard modifier. But then you haven't got a keyboard, only a mouse. And it feels unnatural, and limits you to only zooming from the center.
Every input type has it's own characteristics, and good UIs are designed to match them. Don't assume something is OK unless you've tried it.
The point of the rifle is not to shoot the soldiers. The point of the rifle is to shoot the politicians who give the soldiers their orders.
Hitler, not shot.
Stalin, not shot.
Pol Pot, not shot.
Lincoln, shot.
JFK, shot.
Ronald Regan, shot (though not fatally.)
Your methodology seems a bit flawed.
Anthony Watts of the infamous Watts Up With That website also claims to be a meteorologist. And he spews falsehoods every week. The only thing I can suggest is that meteorologists don't know as much about climate as you might expect.
But here's the thing. It really does depend on the data. At the end of the day there is such as thing as statistical significance, and it will vary depending on what precisely you are talking about, and the specific data set. It's something for statisticians and climate scientists to discuss. It's not for laypeople to pick their period according to what they are trying to prove at the time.
But for climate in general 30 years really is the norm, and it hasn't changed. For example it's what Wikipedia has in it's definition, and thanks to Wiki's history feature, you can see evidence that it's been that way since at 2004, when the entry was still young.
Whenever anyone tries to use a shorter period than 30 years for climate, you really have to suspect their motives. What are they trying to prove with their cherry picking?
Sales dropped 22% last quarter...and shrunk a more manageable 2% this
Mac sales are falling for the same reason PC sales are falling. The iPad. Up 65% last quarter and 48% this quarter.
Sport seems the thing that an awful lot of people are prepared to pay stupid money for.
As I stated in my other reply above, NOAA has publicly disagreed with you.
NOAA? NOAA has formed no part of the discussion between you and I. And there is no disagreement between my position and NOAAs.
You may have confused me with khayman80, who's ripping your arguments to pieces elsewhere. And to whom you've just had to admit you were wrong. Just as you had to admit to me yesterday that you were wrong about UK gun stats.
Your problem Jane, is that you start out with what you want to believe, then root around for sources to back it up. And when those sources are shown to be wrong, usually because they've been misrepresented by the NRA or WUWT, you are slow to admit your mistake.
I don't understand why people like you are not interested in the truth, but only in those things that back up their political ideas. Why you can't see that you are being misled by the web sites you read.
You may not remember all the claims that "a few years do not make climate, we need at least 10 years of data..." but I sure do.
All the claims from who? I once heard someone claim the moon was made of cheese. Does that make the people who have always said the moon is made of rock and dust somehow wrong?
Doesn't it bother you that even IPCC admits to a "17-year lack of warming", yet CO2 has continued to steadily rise? It doesn't fit their model, man. And they even admit that they can't explain why.
I can explain why, just as the engineer in The Australian newspaper that you are quoting can and did in the first paragraph. 17 years isn't anywhere near approaching the >30 years that are needed to establish a climate trend.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator_2012_500.gif
Well it's tutorials all the way till you escape from the shiny areas and get into the service tunnels. Then it's purely using what you've learned. But the tutorials themselves are fun.
This isn't a matter of honesty or transparency, it's a question of statistical significance. It's a rule of thumb that it takes about 30 years of weather observations to establish what a given climate is like. Shorter than that and there is too much noise in the signal. Heck, El Nino alone may take 12 years to come around, and it's effects won't be the same every time.
A model is a completely different thing,statistically. You can run it as many times as you like.
The scientists, operate according to statistical and scientific method. To accuse them of inconsistency is deeply hypocritical, given the cherry picking behaviour of the deniers.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator_2012_500.gif
Sure, things date. I saw Fantasia just once, on the big screen at a film festival. And because the festival were good about putting the film in context of it's achievement, I could appreciate it for what an achievement it was when it was made.
It's a bit like Laurel and Hardy. It doesn't make many people laugh out loud these days. But you can still appreciate how it had people rolling in the aisles at the time.
I wonder what people will make of our best, innovative stuff in 70 years time?!
Did you have a point to make other than not realising the difference between actual measured climate (real world, single time line, unrepeatable), and models - (run them over and over again.)?
It's not clear whether you think the usual 30 year minimum for reference to climate rather than weather is too long or too short. It reads like you are arguing both.
I'd suggest climate scientists know rather better than you do either way. That at least is not up for debate, especially not by amateurs.
There you go. Not a contemporary idea, and the artist didn't have to ask whether it was art.
The moving people aren't "smoothed out" by time --- so something odd is happening if their world is time-averaged differently than their bodies.
You're being quite literal. Art isn't literal, it combines ideas. It hints at things.
I don't know what Randall has planned; however, if the result of the characters' research/exploration endeavors turns out to be a simple elementary-school picture of the terrestrial hydrological cycle (rather than something more of a philosophical/metaphysical allegory), I'd be a bit surprised.
That wasn't what I was alluding to. I'd be gobsmacked and disappointed too if it was that. But I don't want to spell out what I think it is about.
The other 13 books in Baum's Oz series indicate a separate existence and continuity for Oz outside of Dorothy's mind.
Indeed. That's also clear from the current OZ movie. Again I was hinting, nor trying to prove or argue something.
Well, their oceans and rivers (and general hydrological cycle) seems to have something going on that the characters (and us viewers) don't understand
That sounds very terrestrial to me.
A monotonically rising ocean (with no waves)?
Time flattens out short term fluctuations and leaves the trend.
Uncertainty about whether rivers are "broken"? Unknown gigantic rivers within a relatively short walk of where they live? Something tells me we're not in Kansas anymore.
Not knowing. Questioning. Researching. Something that takes a lot of time.
Did Dorothy leave Kansas? Or was she at home all the time. Those faces looked awfully familiar didn't they.
and the author of XKCD takes a gigantic shit down the mouth of liberal arts on his main page?
It's a major part of art to question itself. XKCDs "gigantic shit" is a tame in joke compared with what Magritte and Duchamp did.