The summary claims "Apple modified its website recently to ensure the message is never displayed without visitors having to scroll down to the bottom first."
The screenshot proves that to be incorrect. And with the widespread use of tablets and smartphones in portrait mode, it's hardly a fringe case.
Bringing up Einstein and Newtown wasn't a case of arguing from authority, it was bringing a specific example of well-known, intelligent people, to counter the sweeping general claim that all religious people are stupid.
It doesn't help when it's a lie about Einstein, and Newton was from the 18th Century.
What makes you think a "present-day scientist" in any less superstitious than any other human? What makes you think the conclusions being reached today are not in fact stupid and wrong?
Perhaps this is where the tables have been turned. Christians have been discriminating against non-christians, homosexuals and other races for centuries. Sometimes to the extent of executing them.
If one looks at actual history rather than peak oil hysteria
There's no hysteria, only the fact of peak oil. Attempted growth in extraction of a finite resource will at some point reach a peak and then decline. It's already been observed in multiple countries. For the US, peak oil happened in 1970. There is no question that it also happens globally. And that it's happening round about now. One can argue about whether it's already past, or if it's a few years in the future. But it's certainly not decades off.
one sees a remarkable ability to adapt.
Yes. The thing is I'm on the side of people who are adapting. You want to put off change for 50 years.
An opinion which remains unsullied by hard evidence.
Bury your head in the sand if you want. Your denial is irrelevant.
That's not true. The bulk of oil use is in transportation, which is not a "million year transition". It could fix itself in a decade or two.
Huh? What;'s that got to do with fossil fuels taking millions of years to form?
And oil substitutes (namely "synthetic oil") already exists, has always existed, and can be produced in plentiful quantities. The hangup is that it is expensive to do so
The expense in monetary terms is not the killer. It's the expense in energy terms. Synthetic oils take more energy to produce than they contain. And biofuels are inefficient and can't be produced on a scale to replace current fossil fuel usage.
Keep in mind that every economy out there is growing over the long term several percent per year.
Why? Because humanity has been exploiting fossil fuels. The industrial revolution was powered with coal, now it's reliant on oil and gas too. Trouble is we're at peak oil now, and the ever increasing extraction of it cannot continue. Exponential growth relying on a finite resource is not sustainable. There isn't 50 years of growth left. Most of that 50 years will feature decline in global petroleum.
Your proposal of procrastination until the brink is reached will not work, regardless of AGW.
Not some vague worry, like tropical cyclones might be slightly more powerful and harmful than they've been in the past.
"On Oct. 29, Foley thumbed thusly: âoeWould this kind of storm happen without climate change? Yes. Fueled by many factors. Is storm stronger because of climate change? Yes.â Eric Pooley, senior vice president of the Environmental Defense Fund (and former deputy editor of Bloomberg Businessweek), offers a baseball analogy: âoeWe canâ(TM)t say that steroids caused any one home run by Barry Bonds, but steroids sure helped him hit more and hit them farther. Now we have weather on steroids.â"
I'm sorry but if you're not aware that climate is weather occurring over a long period of time, and 30 years is considered the minimum then you don't know climate 101 and shouldn't even be trying to argue in this debate.
But if we don't do this, we just have to deal in a century or two with the modest consequences of global warming, some increase in sea level, global temperature, and a slight acidification of the oceans.
...and the fact that there is little oil left in the ground. And none that is practical to extract.
Lod you're just confirming the double standard Hairyfeet is talking about. You only think one has been wronged and the other one hasn't because of your concepts of which are the good guys and which are the bad. It's the exact same thing for both.
Very revealing. You see Google as the good guys and Apple as the bad guys. So whatever Google does you will see as good and whatever Apple does as bad. Even if they are the same thing.
You don't see the difference between Apple's abuse of the patent system by attempting to prove someone copied trivial things that already existed like rounded corners, and Google's FRAND patents that *every* manufacturer *including* Apple agrees are valid?
Someone has already pointed out that Apple doesn't have dominance in smartphones. I'll point out that these are the sam, not "other markets". It's a razor and blades, printer and printer ink or console and game situation. Absolutely nothing wrong with them. Indeed the courts protect the rights of companies to use these business models.
The judges seem to be annoyed that Apple quoted their comments about coolness. And that Apple put other countries courts decisions on a similar level of importance to theirs.
There are a handful of companies providing original map data. A lot of government surveys, from lots of governments. And then other sources such as Open Street Maps.
All of this material apart from the Google's own data is just as available to Apple as it is to Google.
And like Google, Apple also has data of it's own.
There's no fundamental difference in the amount of source data available. Google have just had more time to integrate it.
Siri's speech recognition doesn't come from Apple, and the rest of Siri is as much of a toy as it has always been.
By that argument Google's mapping doesn't come from Google. When big companies move into new areas of technology the often buy small companies who already have experience and relevant technology. Google Maps was originally a Where 2 Technologies application, and Google bought it.
Now, have you got any real points to make in your rant?
Slashdot Mirror
And you remembered you didn't have to scroll because?
And yet anyone that looks at the screenshot can see it's not a lie.
Which makes you the dishonest one.
The summary claims "Apple modified its website recently to ensure the message is never displayed without visitors having to scroll down to the bottom first."
The screenshot proves that to be incorrect. And with the widespread use of tablets and smartphones in portrait mode, it's hardly a fringe case.
And you specifically remember that because?
Don't have to scroll to see it. http://imgur.com/gwdtH
Bringing up Einstein and Newtown wasn't a case of arguing from authority, it was bringing a specific example of well-known, intelligent people, to counter the sweeping general claim that all religious people are stupid.
It doesn't help when it's a lie about Einstein, and Newton was from the 18th Century.
What makes you think a "present-day scientist" in any less superstitious than any other human? What makes you think the conclusions being reached today are not in fact stupid and wrong?
The scientific method.
Perhaps this is where the tables have been turned. Christians have been discriminating against non-christians, homosexuals and other races for centuries. Sometimes to the extent of executing them.
If one looks at actual history rather than peak oil hysteria
There's no hysteria, only the fact of peak oil. Attempted growth in extraction of a finite resource will at some point reach a peak and then decline. It's already been observed in multiple countries. For the US, peak oil happened in 1970. There is no question that it also happens globally. And that it's happening round about now. One can argue about whether it's already past, or if it's a few years in the future. But it's certainly not decades off.
one sees a remarkable ability to adapt.
Yes. The thing is I'm on the side of people who are adapting. You want to put off change for 50 years.
An opinion which remains unsullied by hard evidence.
Bury your head in the sand if you want. Your denial is irrelevant.
The truth is clearly not for you.
You aren't beaten because we have better rhetoric than you. You're beaten because you lied.
That's not true. The bulk of oil use is in transportation, which is not a "million year transition". It could fix itself in a decade or two.
Huh? What;'s that got to do with fossil fuels taking millions of years to form?
And oil substitutes (namely "synthetic oil") already exists, has always existed, and can be produced in plentiful quantities. The hangup is that it is expensive to do so
The expense in monetary terms is not the killer. It's the expense in energy terms. Synthetic oils take more energy to produce than they contain. And biofuels are inefficient and can't be produced on a scale to replace current fossil fuel usage.
Keep in mind that every economy out there is growing over the long term several percent per year.
Why? Because humanity has been exploiting fossil fuels. The industrial revolution was powered with coal, now it's reliant on oil and gas too. Trouble is we're at peak oil now, and the ever increasing extraction of it cannot continue. Exponential growth relying on a finite resource is not sustainable. There isn't 50 years of growth left. Most of that 50 years will feature decline in global petroleum.
Your proposal of procrastination until the brink is reached will not work, regardless of AGW.
Not some vague worry, like tropical cyclones might be slightly more powerful and harmful than they've been in the past.
It's not some vague worry, its already happening.
The money shot from the article:
"On Oct. 29, Foley thumbed thusly: âoeWould this kind of storm happen without climate change? Yes. Fueled by many factors. Is storm stronger because of climate change? Yes.â Eric Pooley, senior vice president of the Environmental Defense Fund (and former deputy editor of Bloomberg Businessweek), offers a baseball analogy: âoeWe canâ(TM)t say that steroids caused any one home run by Barry Bonds, but steroids sure helped him hit more and hit them farther. Now we have weather on steroids.â"
I'm sorry but if you're not aware that climate is weather occurring over a long period of time, and 30 years is considered the minimum then you don't know climate 101 and shouldn't even be trying to argue in this debate.
But if we don't do this, we just have to deal in a century or two with the modest consequences of global warming, some increase in sea level, global temperature, and a slight acidification of the oceans.
...and the fact that there is little oil left in the ground. And none that is practical to extract.
We can file that lie away with your attempt to compare the number of hurricanes and storms in Oct 2012 with Jan-Dec 2011.
Filed in the circular filing box.
We need oil and always will.
Well that's a bit of a problem because it's not infinite, and takes millions of years to form new supplies.
Lod you're just confirming the double standard Hairyfeet is talking about. You only think one has been wronged and the other one hasn't because of your concepts of which are the good guys and which are the bad. It's the exact same thing for both.
Very revealing. You see Google as the good guys and Apple as the bad guys. So whatever Google does you will see as good and whatever Apple does as bad. Even if they are the same thing.
You don't see the difference between Apple's abuse of the patent system by attempting to prove someone copied trivial things that already existed like rounded corners, and Google's FRAND patents that *every* manufacturer *including* Apple agrees are valid?
What we can see are your double standards.
You don't understand the issue. There's nothing wrong with the app or it's code. It's the map data that has some issues.
Someone has already pointed out that Apple doesn't have dominance in smartphones. I'll point out that these are the sam, not "other markets". It's a razor and blades, printer and printer ink or console and game situation. Absolutely nothing wrong with them. Indeed the courts protect the rights of companies to use these business models.
"please cite additional judgements which have been invalidateD".
UK judges don't have the power to invalidate the judgements of other countries' courts.
The judges seem to be annoyed that Apple quoted their comments about coolness. And that Apple put other countries courts decisions on a similar level of importance to theirs.
The problem seems to be the judge's egos.
Google Maps fuses hundreds of data sources.
There are a handful of companies providing original map data. A lot of government surveys, from lots of governments. And then other sources such as Open Street Maps.
All of this material apart from the Google's own data is just as available to Apple as it is to Google.
And like Google, Apple also has data of it's own.
There's no fundamental difference in the amount of source data available. Google have just had more time to integrate it.
Siri's speech recognition doesn't come from Apple, and the rest of Siri is as much of a toy as it has always been.
By that argument Google's mapping doesn't come from Google. When big companies move into new areas of technology the often buy small companies who already have experience and relevant technology. Google Maps was originally a Where 2 Technologies application, and Google bought it.
Now, have you got any real points to make in your rant?