You & Mr. Fry are arguing about the notion that form follows function; and bollocksing up by using synonyms which have different meanings.
Synonyms that have different meanings?! What a novel concept. Is that kind of like identical twins that are dissimilar?
Yes form follows function is part of it. But there's more than that. For example many designs will make use of the golden ratio. That has nothing to do with functionality - the golden ratio is simply aesthetically pleasing. And it's not fashion either - the golden ratio has been aesthetically pleasing for centuries, and presumably always will be so.
Style, not fashion. The difference between the two is quality and longevity.
Listen, just because it's free doesn't mean we can't voice an opinion. That argument is just as bad as saying "If you have nothing to hide, then surely you won't mind the cops rummaging through your stuff for no reason." There's nothing wrong with saying we don't like it.
No, but there's everything wrong with abusing the people who are giving you the free stuff. It's the not so fine line between giving constructive criticism and being an ungrateful asshole.
The problem with those isn't that they are style over substance. The problem with those is that they are bad design. They were ephemeral fashion not style.
There are of course plenty of stylish cars, and that doesn't tend to make them bad cars. Quite the reverse.
We're just trying to help Canonical see sense before we abandon Ubuntu for another distro.
What? By saying "Piss off, Shuttleworth". It's a wonder anyone is willing to give their work away to people who are as ungrateful as that.
I've actually noticed a similar thing on the iPhone App Store. People who price there apps at "Free" often get a fair few one star reviews with ignorant and abusive comments. Even for decent apps. Devs who charge just 99c get far less of that, and more reasonable reviews.
I'm not sure whether it's that paying for things gives people more respect for them, or simply that low-lifes tend to go around looking for free stuff, which they rapidly discard because there's lots more free stuff around.
Then these other companies (Strategy Analytics and Canalys) step in with their own estimates that are dodgy at best.
It's a mistake to group these two companies together. I too am suspicious of Strategy Analytics. I'm unaware of any history or reputation they have in this field. Canalys on the other hand has been putting out mobile phone market share studies every quarter for about 10 years. They are a reputable research company, and have charted the highs and lows of many manufacturers and mobile OSs. I've never known them of having unrealistic estimates by anyone in the industry. There's also Gartner that do them, and they are credible too, though I'd suggest Canalys is better.
3. What is counted as a smartphone? Phone manufacturers are cramming more smartphone features into low-end devices; remember that even the most basic Symbian phone was counted by Nokia as a smartphone, and look how those ostensibly great sales turned out for Nokia.
There's much confusion about what constitutes a smartphone. You rarely see it defined anywhere. But it's essentially this:
1) A smartphone is a phone which can run third party apps, written with the same APIs as the built in apps. Such that third party apps can be indistinguishable from the built in apps. They are "first class citizens".
2) A featurephone is a phone which can run "applets". WAP, J2ME and such like. They are add on apps, but they limited compared to the built in apps.
3) A dumb phone is a phone which doesn't qualify for either of the above.
The very first Symbian phone, the Ericsson R380, wasn't a smartphone. I don't recall if it qualified as a feature phone or just a dumb phone. But it wasn't a smartphone. Other than that, every Symbian phone was a smartphone. Just because it was 10 years ago and the apps were less flashy doesn't mean they weren't smartphones.
If I was you I'd ask for my money back. Oh that's right, you didn't pay for it. The sense of entitlement and the ungratefulness of Linux users never ceases to amaze me.
The only thing I'm not is a 14 year old girl who wants everything to be pretty or a Mac user who values looks over functionality.
The use of that last phrase, âoestyle over substanceâ has always been, as Oscar Wilde observed, a marvellous and instant indicator of a fool. For those who perceive a separation between the two have either not lived, thought, read or experienced the world with any degree of insight, imagination or connective intelligence. It may have been Leclerc Buffon who first said âoele style câ(TM)est lâ(TM)homme â" the style is the manâ but it is an observation that anyone with sense had understood centuries before, Only dullards crippled into cretinism by a fear of being thought pretentious could be so dumb as to believe that there is a distinction between design and use, between form and function, between style and substance. -- Stephen Fry
And how ridiculous is it to say geeks are "too cool" to use a product. What are you smoking!?!? Geeks love new things that function well and allow them to do cool things. They do not shun these things based on idiotic social protocol.
How very repetitive. "Prune" has astro-turfed this link on the article 8 times so far. The answer is here: http://berkeleyearth.org/FAQ.php#stopped [berkeleyearth.org] Furthermore, you should note that Prof Judith Curry, who is the "colleague" in that article, has complained that the Daily Mail misrepresented her. http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/mail-on-best/ [judithcurry.com]
Mod "Prune" redundant or troll. He's astro-turfed the same link 8 times in this thread. The answer is here: http://berkeleyearth.org/FAQ.php#stopped [berkeleyearth.org] Furthermore, you should note that Prof Judith Curry, who is the "colleague" in that article, has complained that the Daily Mail misrepresented her. http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/mail-on-best/ [judithcurry.com]
"Prune" has astro-turfed this link on the article 8 times so far. It seems only reasonable to rebut them all the same way: http://berkeleyearth.org/FAQ.php#stopped [berkeleyearth.org] Furthermore, you should note that Prof Judith Curry, who is the "colleague" in that article, has complained that the Daily Mail misrepresented her. http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/mail-on-best/ [judithcurry.com]
"Prune" has astro-turfed this link on the article 8 times so far. The answer is here: http://berkeleyearth.org/FAQ.php#stopped [berkeleyearth.org] Furthermore, you should note that Prof Judith Curry, who is the "colleague" in that article, has complained that the Daily Mail misrepresented her. http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/mail-on-best/ [judithcurry.com]
Let's go back and see what has been said here: Person1: YOU want OTHERS to change THEIR behavior while you won't change your own. You: Deniers are made up of several conservative groups who deny GW because it goes against their political beliefs. Me: It's not just conservative groups. Liberal groups do the same thing. You: It doesn't matter than liberals do it to. It doesn't change the fact that when conservatives do it, they are wrong. My goal is to use this single out that conservatives are say that they are wrong because their views are different than mine. I agree with liberals, so I don't care when they do something wrong. It's when those that have differing views from my own that I have a problem with it.
Except that no one said any of those things.
BTW, what does tobacco have to do with this?
Tobacco being carcinogenic is the best analogy. It shows the progress of the scientific method from one scientist through to a consensus of scientists. And the long standing denials of those who's business interests and political ideals were not aligned with the scientific truth.
It would be like you accuse "deniers" of telling lies while you justify lies from the Global Warmongers. Lies like, "Richard Muller, Global Warming Skeptic"
I haven't "justified" any such thing. The facts are that that Muller did an article in Technology Review in 2004 agreeing with McIntyre and McKitrick that the hockey stick analysis of Mann was wrong. He lead Berkley temperature study in a way that he considered would be more accurate, and would show that there wasn't a hockey stick. On the basis of that he got lots of support from denialists, such as 25% funding from the Koch brothers. But the result actually confirmed the hockey stick, and Muller expressed surprise that his earlier conclusions were wrong.
Those are the facts.
Some people branded him a GW sceptic because he disputed the hockey stick. Some people said he wasn't a sceptic because he still accepted that there is global warming. The problem with people of the latter opinion is that pretty much all sceptical scientists now accept there is global warming. They just dispute how much and why. The label is not the interesting thing. The interesting thing is that he didn't believe the hockey stick, set out to demonstrate it was false, and discovered that it was true after all.
For me, its more about letting people live their own lives how than want. We all die, I believe its your choice in how you get to that destination, not mine. If you want to smoke, thats your business.
There's nothing wrong with having that libertarian point of view. However denying the fact that tobacco smoke is carcinogenic when the evidence says it is, in order to get your own libertarian way, is evil.
Same thing goes for AGW. If you want to argue that people should be allowed to pollute regardless of the consequences, that at least would be honest. Denying that there is AGW, despite the scientific evidence, in order that you can continue to pollute, is evil.
What right do you have to tell someone else who ISN'T BOTHERING YOU how to live their life?
In the case of smoking of course, people are still allowed to smoke. They still have that freedom of choice. Except that acceptance of the scientific reality means that you aren't allowed to smoke in lots of places where you would be exposing others to that cancer risk. Further legislation is in place to limit the ability of tobacco companies to pretend that there are no health risks to tobacco, etc.
The same kind of things apply to AGW. Your personal freedom only applies to the extent that it doesn't harm others. And of course because we all share the same atmosphere and weather, when it comes to AGW we are all affecting each other with what we do.
You're nothing more than an ignorant hypocrite who needs to go look in the mirror.
You're a right wing denier. It's hardly surprising that when I point out that deniers do so because of their right wing beliefs, you are annoyed. I touched a sore point for you. But your rant is well off the mark. There's no ignorance or hypocrisy here. I support the the consensus conclusion of scientists. Always. Regardless of politics. That's the position of a rational and honest man.
Ah the old old ploy when caught doing wrong: "Well that kid over there did it as well." Did that ever work when you were a child? Do you find it works as an adult?
It's a particularly amusing pointless ploy when the other person you point as has been dead 39 years.
Lets be clear: deniers were doing wrong when they falsely claimed tobacco didn't cause cancer. Deniers are doing wrong now when they falsely say there's no such thing as AGW. They are doing wrong irrespective of whether anyone else has done something else wrong.
On the blog, she states that the direct attributes from her in the Mail article were accurate.
Yes she does. But that doesn't mean that the indirect attributes weren't false. For example: The Mail article says: "Her comments, in an exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday, seem certain to ignite a furious academic row. She said this affair had to be compared to the notorious ‘Climategate’ scandal two years ago."
Curry says of that: "I did not say that “the affair had to be compared to the notorious Climategate scandal two years ago,” this is indirectly attributed to me. When asked specifically about the graph that apparently uses a 10 year running mean and ends in 2006, we discussed “hide the decline,” but I honestly can’t recall if Rose or I said it first. I agreed that the way the data is presented in the graph “hides the decline.” There is NO comparison of this situation to Climategate. Muller et al. have been very transparent in their methods and in making their data publicly available, which is highly commendable."
The article is a lie. Just because they didn't put the false claims of what Curry said in quotes, doesn't mean it isn't still a lie.
"There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped,’ she said. ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’" From that, I think it is pretty clear that she is indeed saying that the warming has stopped over the last 10 years.
No. No scientific basis to say that is hasn't stopped is NOT the same as saying it has stopped. As a climatologist Curry knows full well that 10 years is too short a period to say either way. She's saying no more than that. And indeed BEST and Muller also say that. The difference is only a matter of how to say it. Curry choses to say that because it's too short a period you can't say GW hasn't stopped. BEST and Muller say that because it's too short a period you can't say it has stopped.
The question is, if 10 years is too short to say what the trend is, why speculate at all? And if you are going to speculate on a too short period, why assume the long term trend is broken rather than the other option that the long term trend continues?
Slashdot Mirror
And never will.
If I was doing this, I would have done it just to be a dick, not to profit.
It comes as no surprise to anyone that you're a dick.
especially for anyone that thinks macs are immune.
It's not people who think Macs are immune that are in danger. It's people who are downloading warez from bittorrent.
You & Mr. Fry are arguing about the notion that form follows function;
and bollocksing up by using synonyms which have different meanings.
Synonyms that have different meanings?! What a novel concept. Is that kind of like identical twins that are dissimilar?
Yes form follows function is part of it. But there's more than that. For example many designs will make use of the golden ratio. That has nothing to do with functionality - the golden ratio is simply aesthetically pleasing. And it's not fashion either - the golden ratio has been aesthetically pleasing for centuries, and presumably always will be so.
Style, not fashion. The difference between the two is quality and longevity.
Which particular words are you claiming are synonyms? Because none of those words are.
Wrong guess. It's a straightforward cut'n'paste from the Internet. It's a longstanding Slashdot bug, not anything to do with MS Word.
Wow, you don't think Mark Shuttleworth created Ubuntu single-handedly with his money, do you?
No indeed. There are many more people who worked to create the thing you get for free. Plenty more people to abuse and be ungrateful to.
Listen, just because it's free doesn't mean we can't voice an opinion. That argument is just as bad as saying "If you have nothing to hide, then surely you won't mind the cops rummaging through your stuff for no reason." There's nothing wrong with saying we don't like it.
No, but there's everything wrong with abusing the people who are giving you the free stuff. It's the not so fine line between giving constructive criticism and being an ungrateful asshole.
The problem with those isn't that they are style over substance. The problem with those is that they are bad design. They were ephemeral fashion not style.
There are of course plenty of stylish cars, and that doesn't tend to make them bad cars. Quite the reverse.
You don't think he's a Linux user? You don't think he's an Ubuntu user? In which case what do you think he's basing his opinions on, huh?
It's not him in particular, I see it all over sSlashdot. People whining, as if they deserve better, for something they have been given for free.
We're just trying to help Canonical see sense before we abandon Ubuntu for another distro.
What? By saying "Piss off, Shuttleworth". It's a wonder anyone is willing to give their work away to people who are as ungrateful as that.
I've actually noticed a similar thing on the iPhone App Store. People who price there apps at "Free" often get a fair few one star reviews with ignorant and abusive comments. Even for decent apps. Devs who charge just 99c get far less of that, and more reasonable reviews.
I'm not sure whether it's that paying for things gives people more respect for them, or simply that low-lifes tend to go around looking for free stuff, which they rapidly discard because there's lots more free stuff around.
Then these other companies (Strategy Analytics and Canalys) step in with their own estimates that are dodgy at best.
It's a mistake to group these two companies together. I too am suspicious of Strategy Analytics. I'm unaware of any history or reputation they have in this field. Canalys on the other hand has been putting out mobile phone market share studies every quarter for about 10 years. They are a reputable research company, and have charted the highs and lows of many manufacturers and mobile OSs. I've never known them of having unrealistic estimates by anyone in the industry.
There's also Gartner that do them, and they are credible too, though I'd suggest Canalys is better.
3. What is counted as a smartphone? Phone manufacturers are cramming more smartphone features into low-end devices; remember that even the most basic Symbian phone was counted by Nokia as a smartphone, and look how those ostensibly great sales turned out for Nokia.
There's much confusion about what constitutes a smartphone. You rarely see it defined anywhere. But it's essentially this:
1) A smartphone is a phone which can run third party apps, written with the same APIs as the built in apps. Such that third party apps can be indistinguishable from the built in apps. They are "first class citizens".
2) A featurephone is a phone which can run "applets". WAP, J2ME and such like. They are add on apps, but they limited compared to the built in apps.
3) A dumb phone is a phone which doesn't qualify for either of the above.
The very first Symbian phone, the Ericsson R380, wasn't a smartphone. I don't recall if it qualified as a feature phone or just a dumb phone. But it wasn't a smartphone. Other than that, every Symbian phone was a smartphone. Just because it was 10 years ago and the apps were less flashy doesn't mean they weren't smartphones.
Piss off, Shuttleworth
If I was you I'd ask for my money back. Oh that's right, you didn't pay for it. The sense of entitlement and the ungratefulness of Linux users never ceases to amaze me.
The only thing I'm not is a 14 year old girl who wants everything to be pretty or a Mac user who values looks over functionality.
The use of that last phrase, âoestyle over substanceâ has always been, as Oscar Wilde observed, a marvellous and instant indicator of a fool. For those who perceive a separation between the two have either not lived, thought, read or experienced the world with any degree of insight, imagination or connective intelligence. It may have been Leclerc Buffon who first said âoele style câ(TM)est lâ(TM)homme â" the style is the manâ but it is an observation that anyone with sense had understood centuries before, Only dullards crippled into cretinism by a fear of being thought pretentious could be so dumb as to believe that there is a distinction between design and use, between form and function, between style and substance. -- Stephen Fry
And how ridiculous is it to say geeks are "too cool" to use a product. What are you smoking!?!? Geeks love new things that function well and allow them to do cool things. They do not shun these things based on idiotic social protocol.
You must be new here.
How very repetitive. "Prune" has astro-turfed this link on the article 8 times so far. The answer is here:
http://berkeleyearth.org/FAQ.php#stopped [berkeleyearth.org]
Furthermore, you should note that Prof Judith Curry, who is the "colleague" in that article, has complained that the Daily Mail misrepresented her.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/mail-on-best/ [judithcurry.com]
Mod "Prune" redundant or troll. He's astro-turfed the same link 8 times in this thread. The answer is here:
http://berkeleyearth.org/FAQ.php#stopped [berkeleyearth.org]
Furthermore, you should note that Prof Judith Curry, who is the "colleague" in that article, has complained that the Daily Mail misrepresented her.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/mail-on-best/ [judithcurry.com]
"Prune" has astro-turfed this link on the article 8 times so far. It seems only reasonable to rebut them all the same way:
http://berkeleyearth.org/FAQ.php#stopped [berkeleyearth.org]
Furthermore, you should note that Prof Judith Curry, who is the "colleague" in that article, has complained that the Daily Mail misrepresented her.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/mail-on-best/ [judithcurry.com]
Another "Prune" astro-turf post. The answer is in the FAQ:
http://berkeleyearth.org/FAQ.php#stopped [berkeleyearth.org]
Furthermore, you should note that Prof Judith Curry, who is the "colleague" in that article, has complained that the Daily Mail misrepresented her.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/mail-on-best/ [judithcurry.com]
"Prune" has astro-turfed this link on the article 8 times so far. The answer is here:
http://berkeleyearth.org/FAQ.php#stopped [berkeleyearth.org]
Furthermore, you should note that Prof Judith Curry, who is the "colleague" in that article, has complained that the Daily Mail misrepresented her.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/mail-on-best/ [judithcurry.com]
Rather than get your knowledge of the study from the Daily Mail, you'd do better to consult the FAQ,
http://berkeleyearth.org/FAQ.php#stopped
Furthermore, you should note that Prof Judith Curry, who is the "colleague" in that article, has complained that the Daily Mail misrepresented her.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/mail-on-best/
I'd raise your sights in terms of the quality of your reading material if I was you.
Let's go back and see what has been said here:
Person1: YOU want OTHERS to change THEIR behavior while you won't change your own.
You: Deniers are made up of several conservative groups who deny GW because it goes against their political beliefs.
Me: It's not just conservative groups. Liberal groups do the same thing.
You: It doesn't matter than liberals do it to. It doesn't change the fact that when conservatives do it, they are wrong. My goal is to use this single out that conservatives are say that they are wrong because their views are different than mine. I agree with liberals, so I don't care when they do something wrong. It's when those that have differing views from my own that I have a problem with it.
Except that no one said any of those things.
BTW, what does tobacco have to do with this?
Tobacco being carcinogenic is the best analogy. It shows the progress of the scientific method from one scientist through to a consensus of scientists. And the long standing denials of those who's business interests and political ideals were not aligned with the scientific truth.
It would be like you accuse "deniers" of telling lies while you justify lies from the Global Warmongers. Lies like, "Richard Muller, Global Warming Skeptic"
I haven't "justified" any such thing. The facts are that that Muller did an article in Technology Review in 2004 agreeing with McIntyre and McKitrick that the hockey stick analysis of Mann was wrong. He lead Berkley temperature study in a way that he considered would be more accurate, and would show that there wasn't a hockey stick. On the basis of that he got lots of support from denialists, such as 25% funding from the Koch brothers. But the result actually confirmed the hockey stick, and Muller expressed surprise that his earlier conclusions were wrong.
Those are the facts.
Some people branded him a GW sceptic because he disputed the hockey stick. Some people said he wasn't a sceptic because he still accepted that there is global warming. The problem with people of the latter opinion is that pretty much all sceptical scientists now accept there is global warming. They just dispute how much and why. The label is not the interesting thing. The interesting thing is that he didn't believe the hockey stick, set out to demonstrate it was false, and discovered that it was true after all.
For me, its more about letting people live their own lives how than want. We all die, I believe its your choice in how you get to that destination, not mine. If you want to smoke, thats your business.
There's nothing wrong with having that libertarian point of view. However denying the fact that tobacco smoke is carcinogenic when the evidence says it is, in order to get your own libertarian way, is evil.
Same thing goes for AGW. If you want to argue that people should be allowed to pollute regardless of the consequences, that at least would be honest. Denying that there is AGW, despite the scientific evidence, in order that you can continue to pollute, is evil.
What right do you have to tell someone else who ISN'T BOTHERING YOU how to live their life?
In the case of smoking of course, people are still allowed to smoke. They still have that freedom of choice. Except that acceptance of the scientific reality means that you aren't allowed to smoke in lots of places where you would be exposing others to that cancer risk. Further legislation is in place to limit the ability of tobacco companies to pretend that there are no health risks to tobacco, etc.
The same kind of things apply to AGW. Your personal freedom only applies to the extent that it doesn't harm others. And of course because we all share the same atmosphere and weather, when it comes to AGW we are all affecting each other with what we do.
You're nothing more than an ignorant hypocrite who needs to go look in the mirror.
You're a right wing denier. It's hardly surprising that when I point out that deniers do so because of their right wing beliefs, you are annoyed. I touched a sore point for you. But your rant is well off the mark. There's no ignorance or hypocrisy here. I support the the consensus conclusion of scientists. Always. Regardless of politics. That's the position of a rational and honest man.
Ah the old old ploy when caught doing wrong: "Well that kid over there did it as well." Did that ever work when you were a child? Do you find it works as an adult?
It's a particularly amusing pointless ploy when the other person you point as has been dead 39 years.
Lets be clear: deniers were doing wrong when they falsely claimed tobacco didn't cause cancer. Deniers are doing wrong now when they falsely say there's no such thing as AGW. They are doing wrong irrespective of whether anyone else has done something else wrong.
On the blog, she states that the direct attributes from her in the Mail article were accurate.
Yes she does. But that doesn't mean that the indirect attributes weren't false. For example: The Mail article says:
"Her comments, in an exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday, seem certain to ignite a furious academic row. She said this affair had to be compared to the notorious ‘Climategate’ scandal two years ago."
Curry says of that:
"I did not say that “the affair had to be compared to the notorious Climategate scandal two years ago,” this is indirectly attributed to me. When asked specifically about the graph that apparently uses a 10 year running mean and ends in 2006, we discussed “hide the decline,” but I honestly can’t recall if Rose or I said it first. I agreed that the way the data is presented in the graph “hides the decline.” There is NO comparison of this situation to Climategate. Muller et al. have been very transparent in their methods and in making their data publicly available, which is highly commendable."
The article is a lie. Just because they didn't put the false claims of what Curry said in quotes, doesn't mean it isn't still a lie.
"There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped,’ she said. ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’"
From that, I think it is pretty clear that she is indeed saying that the warming has stopped over the last 10 years.
No. No scientific basis to say that is hasn't stopped is NOT the same as saying it has stopped. As a climatologist Curry knows full well that 10 years is too short a period to say either way. She's saying no more than that. And indeed BEST and Muller also say that. The difference is only a matter of how to say it. Curry choses to say that because it's too short a period you can't say GW hasn't stopped. BEST and Muller say that because it's too short a period you can't say it has stopped.
The question is, if 10 years is too short to say what the trend is, why speculate at all? And if you are going to speculate on a too short period, why assume the long term trend is broken rather than the other option that the long term trend continues?