... I would not mind betting the "other things" are actually the ones that were worth paying for, and that Microsoft slipped the "Linux patents" into the mix because Casio is using Linux. It costs Microsoft nothing but they get "precedent" with which to argue they hold valid patents affecting Linux.
I am not sure of a dictionary definition, but I do believe what you just described is a process used in slang and everyday language, colloquially, called "cock-waving".
I believe it can also be described as "flexing [their] nuts" or "trying to get the last word in" in an inappropriately hyperbolic sense. FUD uses this process often.
He wasn't asking you why patents are bad. He was asking you to back up your claim that MS is patent troll.
Patent trolls are companies that exist only to file patent lawsuits. They don't invent anything themselves and have filed none of their own patents.
Clearly, by no stretch of the imagination or any definition of "patent troll" is MS one.
It's stretching it, but I think they are referring to the fact that it's popular opinion.
Basically, everyone did not think that Hitler was bad, but since he was bad in enough peoples' minds, over time, it's agreed upon by the statistical majority that he was and IS, in fact, bad.
I don't like to describe every single aspect of a person over and over again in order to plainly describe their looks, their demeanor, their habits and behaviors, etc. I'll just call them "cool" or "slob" (in this referential context).
Same goes for Microsoft and their behavior with patents. I don't think of them as a patent troll in my mind, but I see them performing acts with commonalities in reference to patent trolls. It's easier to call them that then to call them "the company that claims to have patents on several concepts, which has not been proven in court to be sufficient, if they exist, to find another entity guilty of violating said patents, and, continues to use its abilities to coerce companies into believing that the aforementioned is favorable in the direction of Microsoft enough to encourage payments as if the patent rights do, in fact, exist."
Can someone explain why simply telling MS to fuck off isn't an option? You shouldn't even need lawyers, just keep telling them you think their claims are invalid and if they think otherwise feel free to test them in court. What is stopping other companies doing that?
Agreed.
While you're at it, you may as well also tell them what harm their proceeding with a suit will do to your company, and that you plan to file a counterclaim against them if they elect to move forward with their suit. Get enough of those in the public eye (because, you know, documentation from such suits is public) and it may slow down or stop.
"Don't walk up to me threatening to punch unless you're absolutely sure that you're not going to miss, and that you ARE going to knock me out. Otherwise you may have some issues. I can play your game, Microsoft.":)
They are seeking monetary excellence. "Damages" means that you are required to pay now. Injunctive relief means they want them to stop selling a product that they say is theirs. It looks harmless and polite (but tough/stern). In the end what are they doing? If you think outside the box and slow down while you're doing that thinking, you'll see it's to get someone else to stop selling something so that they have the time to develop and sell that very thing themself.
I hate to say it, but you very rarely hear the "woe is me" stories of companies that really are "woed." You hear it 95%+ of the time from companies that like to use "the system" to their advantage.
Really, I don't disagree with you. I'm adding and trying to explain a little better to people who still don't understand.
Other companys pay people to do this type of 'revealing'.
Disclaimer: This is all IMHO, of course.
It looks bad to those with a hint of intelligence to have any evidence that it was a paid move.
It looks a lot more true w/ a dash of subconscious advertisement when you play it as a violation of company secrecy or other policy. Tech geeks are more likely to take this seriously than a typical paid advertisement or revelation. We read between the lines, but sometimes we forget to read between the lines that are between the lines.
All just speculation, but it works. I'm just throwin' it out there.
It's not even particularly new for companies to be super paranoid about "leaks", and to interpret what constitutes a leak very broadly. Apple is probably more paranoid, for example, and Apple employees tend to just avoid Tweeting anything Apple-related for that reason.
I do agree that this was stupid, unless there's something more to the story; it doesn't appear that he actually leaked anything that could plausibly be considered secret, and certainly not any interesting secrets.
I also like the now-self-referential part of the policy that recommends employees think, before they take an action online:
How would it look on Slashdot or on the front page of the New York Times?
Hmm.. Good thought. Unless the spreading of "interesting secrets" could be a ploy intended to draw the typical "need to know....MUST BUY" effect.
Doesn't matter if it's harmless or not, unfortunately. If it 100% legally, documentationally (my new word of the day) correct to higher-ups, it's a danger element in the game of business. I wish people would loosen up more, but loose speech = blame and suits (all definitions of the word).
I couldn't find any specific thing in his tweets that would justify firing the man.
He mentioned that there will be WP7 on a Nokia device. He also stated that he wasn't happy because the lighting wasn't right in a picture due to his own failure. *gasp* /friendly_sarcasm
...Goes to show that you can enforce rules where no harm was done in order to "save face." At the _same time_ you can do things you can't be openly "caught" with, such as hiring non-qualified employees because you "know them" or were in the same "[insert group here]" as them in the past.
Not trying to be an ass, for the record. Sharing information. Hopefully I'm not doing a horrid thing like Mr. Ex-Microsoft.;-)
I wonder how the companies with these ridiculous caps will promote the next technology... "blaze through your data cap in no time with our new technology..." I always argued that data caps would become a problem, and made room for companies to put users in a tight spot and charge them more money... now its going to start to show as things progress from here. I still believe that any company promoting high speeds with data caps should be regulated and forced to follow strict pricing guidelines.. of course that will never happen... if you cant support a network at speeds you claim uncapped, or at least more reasonably, then you just shouldn't offer it.
I hear ya... I believe that the companies will simply state that there *is no data cap*, then limit the speeds accordingly - Here's my view of the future (lol) --
Rando: "Why is my speed so slow? I have 4G and it's unlimited." -- Wireless PHO (pointy-haired operator): "Ma'am, you do have unlimited 4G, I see that.. It looks like you may be in an area with a lot of interference and that is probably limiting your speed. You may want to talk with the power company, the water company, the city, the electric company, NASA, television companies, well..... anyone who transmits anything on any part of the RF spectrum. It's their fault not ours. They are out of control!" -- Rando: "I have five bars and my signal strength is -50dBm, ASU is maxed out. Your tower site, 114R7884, is within less than a quarter of a mile from me right now and I'm standing outside. Connected bandwidth is.3Mbps download no matter which speedtest.net server location I choose. Problem is definitely on your end. My current CID is 77532189, LAC is 16554. Same LAC/CID pair was just as powerful and operating with a consistent 20+Mbps up until this month." -- Wireless PHO: "I am supposed to end the conversation with anyone who knows what dBm means, and if they mention CID, I am supposed to play dumb, spout unofficial information, and slam my phone. We do not use anything called a CID for bandwidth limitations, ma'am. Have a great day ma'am, and thank you for choosing xxxxx Wireless, the fastest wireless data company in the world, ma'am. *boom-click*"
Yet another 3D triangle in the market - speed, coverage area size (small or large), price. You only get three of the four, in relational terms.:)
It's psychologically about status and 'first-to-play'.
Many, MANY people want to be the 'first to have [something]', and many others want to live in the world of being 'above the rest'.
Those desires, combined with the limitations of usage imposed by the provider, equal profit in the end. Nice equation; been used for years.
Add shame on to the end and you have a winner (e.g. "I uh... MEANT to use 20x my data cap this month because it was ummm.. important stuff that I needed and I uhh.. planned on it ahead of time!")
Just what I was thinking. If the test didn't include at least 200 devices (VERY conservative estimate) on each network node then the results might as well have been on a dedicated landline.
LOL! No kidding. How many comment pages could be filled with reference links to "false representations" from corporations in the past that looked "so damn fine" when they came out?:)
4G's lower-layer method is MIMO. With much less battery life, of course reception and transmission overall efficiency will be increased. There will be a loss with said increase, like every other balance.
I don't like the battery life of my Samsung Infuse with AT&T with HSPA+; I can't imagine how bad it would be with 4G. Of course, it is said that my Infuse supports firmware update to upgrade to LTE when it comes to fruition, but I will bet money that AT&T will say that it can't and charge for upgrade.
Given battery life and lack of need (plus data amount limitations), I see no reason to upgrade. There's nothing for the phone to do that requires more than 3Mbps, anyway.
"You have excelled in speed, now use it fast because yo' cap ain't gonna last more than a couple o' minutes."
I guess I can pull up the weather maps and check the daily forecast to stay under my limit; it will pop up faster than it did before. Wooooowwwwwwwww. /sarcasm
Once someone has seen something and developed their opinion on it, almost everything they see from that point on is driven in the direction they wish it to be. Note: read past this next statement BEFORE you develop an opinion, readers. I suspect (but don't have scientific evidence) that it's related to loss of time and ego - i.e. one spends three months studying something deeply, with revelations, then is suddenly hit with information that discredits it wholly. Said person is not likely to change their opinion simply because it (subconsciously) renders the last three months' worth of time worthless and lowers their intelligent ego factor. Example: See the article here. It represents the finding that solar flares don't specifically come from a single area of the sun; they can simultaneously come from multiple areas - new discovery. Scientists have to expand their minds. Let's see how many do and how many try to prove it's BS.
What I'm saying is that I'm not FOR or AGAINST global warming being a fact. I'm saying that there is evidence for it AND against it, and those who have chosen their path stick with it.
Open-mindedness and reverse of thought have always been and (probably) always will be a "bad" in politics and science. Everyone is supposed to have evidence of their opinion and stick with it or they are devalued. No one wants to be devalued, so they play the social game as it stands.
End statement: it isn't that no one cares; it's that the ones who care either have their mind set on the + or the -. The ones who don't and are looking for new evidence to help lead them one way or another are always disappointed in the end because of the bickering of the above + or - groups.
I'm going to be marked as flamebait or troll is modded because a fact of psychology is that people don't like psychological projection and often engage in displacement as a result. I said I don't have an opinion and am helping to provide insight as to why things aren't progressing, but since people do not see me as being "FOR their opinion", it's automagically converted to hate in their mind. I've studied psychology, so I'm with ya on the whole "I know a lot but...", eldavojohn.
There is absolutely no danger in using stem cell to treat a fatal disease. So what if your stem cell injection may cause cancer in 2 years if your current disease will cause death in 6 months? Patients who are close to death should be allowed to opt into almost any treatment that has a plausible chance of success (unlike therapies which are proven frauds, like homeopathy, etc.)
You have a good point.. But try really hard to imagine that you're an insurance corporate executive (or someone right below that) that makes the decisions on whether these things are good or bad for the possibility of Human happiness -vs- your bonus at the end of the fiscal quarter based on the company's profits. Who would you (the corp person) choose? Yourself with more money and less work, or the good of the people which means more work and less money....? Don't think about answering on your OWN belief set. Answer that on behalf of the corp person who, themself, probably doesn't have cancer or any other major ailments that have changed their viewpoint on life.
Unfortunately, our government and economic system MAY BE BETTER than many others in the world (and in history), but one area it's SELFISH in is HEALTH.
What I said doesn't account for individual scientists or people who want health to be a priority; they're just overpowered and over-moneyed by others (I'll use that phrase:)).
I'm not trying to be mean or trollin' - I'm just pointing out what's before my eyes and in the bills that come in the mail almost every single day.
Some even see the renewable energy industry as a government-backed Goliath to the fossil energy industry's David, the underdog just trying to make an honest buck. Hilarious.
Well, when you've got uneducated minions to do the dirty work for ya.... "Man, if you would only cut us a break. We're poor good people just trying to do a good thing.. and nothing else!"
Off-topic in a way... but have you run live statistics lately, while reading, on how many pompous know-it-alls can't spell more than 90% of the words they use correctly? It's sad and hilarious. I laughed out loud when reading your comment here, after having read many other winded comments from the aforementioned in the past couple of days. I give up. I feel thy pain. Damnit, I just did it!:) /humor
Of course, just because someone publishes an article claiming to find a flaw in someone else's research does not necessarially mean that the original research was flawed, either. That article has to be vetted as well. Science is slow, tedious, and a lot more ambiguous than the media has made it out to be.
Exactly. That's why we still continue to argue for and against global warming as a Human-created event. Everyone can argue it to death, but until there is hard evidence that is beyond a shadow of a doubt, it will just be argument. The data won't be present in our lifetime, so it must be something to argue over when we're bored... or something to that effect.
Slashdot Mirror
... I would not mind betting the "other things" are actually the ones that were worth paying for, and that Microsoft slipped the "Linux patents" into the mix because Casio is using Linux. It costs Microsoft nothing but they get "precedent" with which to argue they hold valid patents affecting Linux.
I am not sure of a dictionary definition, but I do believe what you just described is a process used in slang and everyday language, colloquially, called "cock-waving".
I believe it can also be described as "flexing [their] nuts" or "trying to get the last word in" in an inappropriately hyperbolic sense. FUD uses this process often.
Is this the same Casio that sold sub-par music keyboards?
Hey!
One of those sub-par keyboards in the 80's made me the man I am today!
<whisper>a supergeek that knows how to push buttons. Except on women.</whisper>
He wasn't asking you why patents are bad. He was asking you to back up your claim that MS is patent troll.
Patent trolls are companies that exist only to file patent lawsuits. They don't invent anything themselves and have filed none of their own patents.
Clearly, by no stretch of the imagination or any definition of "patent troll" is MS one.
It's stretching it, but I think they are referring to the fact that it's popular opinion.
Basically, everyone did not think that Hitler was bad, but since he was bad in enough peoples' minds, over time, it's agreed upon by the statistical majority that he was and IS, in fact, bad.
I don't like to describe every single aspect of a person over and over again in order to plainly describe their looks, their demeanor, their habits and behaviors, etc. I'll just call them "cool" or "slob" (in this referential context).
Same goes for Microsoft and their behavior with patents. I don't think of them as a patent troll in my mind, but I see them performing acts with commonalities in reference to patent trolls. It's easier to call them that then to call them "the company that claims to have patents on several concepts, which has not been proven in court to be sufficient, if they exist, to find another entity guilty of violating said patents, and, continues to use its abilities to coerce companies into believing that the aforementioned is favorable in the direction of Microsoft enough to encourage payments as if the patent rights do, in fact, exist."
It's easier to say "patent troll". :)
Can someone explain why simply telling MS to fuck off isn't an option? You shouldn't even need lawyers, just keep telling them you think their claims are invalid and if they think otherwise feel free to test them in court. What is stopping other companies doing that?
Agreed.
While you're at it, you may as well also tell them what harm their proceeding with a suit will do to your company, and that you plan to file a counterclaim against them if they elect to move forward with their suit. Get enough of those in the public eye (because, you know, documentation from such suits is public) and it may slow down or stop.
"Don't walk up to me threatening to punch unless you're absolutely sure that you're not going to miss, and that you ARE going to knock me out. Otherwise you may have some issues. I can play your game, Microsoft." :)
They are seeking monetary excellence. "Damages" means that you are required to pay now. Injunctive relief means they want them to stop selling a product that they say is theirs. It looks harmless and polite (but tough/stern). In the end what are they doing? If you think outside the box and slow down while you're doing that thinking, you'll see it's to get someone else to stop selling something so that they have the time to develop and sell that very thing themself.
I hate to say it, but you very rarely hear the "woe is me" stories of companies that really are "woed." You hear it 95%+ of the time from companies that like to use "the system" to their advantage.
Really, I don't disagree with you. I'm adding and trying to explain a little better to people who still don't understand.
IMHOWE - In My Humble, Opinion, With Experience
Other companys pay people to do this type of 'revealing'.
Disclaimer: This is all IMHO, of course.
It looks bad to those with a hint of intelligence to have any evidence that it was a paid move.
It looks a lot more true w/ a dash of subconscious advertisement when you play it as a violation of company secrecy or other policy. Tech geeks are more likely to take this seriously than a typical paid advertisement or revelation. We read between the lines, but sometimes we forget to read between the lines that are between the lines.
All just speculation, but it works. I'm just throwin' it out there.
Now they have more publicity for their upcoming phone. Well played.
If only more people agreed openly, it would be taken more seriously by the average "joe". I'm with ya on this.
It's not even particularly new for companies to be super paranoid about "leaks", and to interpret what constitutes a leak very broadly. Apple is probably more paranoid, for example, and Apple employees tend to just avoid Tweeting anything Apple-related for that reason.
I do agree that this was stupid, unless there's something more to the story; it doesn't appear that he actually leaked anything that could plausibly be considered secret, and certainly not any interesting secrets.
I also like the now-self-referential part of the policy that recommends employees think, before they take an action online:
Hmm.. Good thought. Unless the spreading of "interesting secrets" could be a ploy intended to draw the typical "need to know....MUST BUY" effect.
I am SO not trolling. This stuff happens!
replace "if it 100%" with "if it isn't 100%".
Harmless speech.... Hmm.. Reminds me of some post in the past about teachers and students talking on facebook in a harmless way...
Doesn't matter if it's harmless or not, unfortunately. If it 100% legally, documentationally (my new word of the day) correct to higher-ups, it's a danger element in the game of business. I wish people would loosen up more, but loose speech = blame and suits (all definitions of the word).
I couldn't find any specific thing in his tweets that would justify firing the man.
He mentioned that there will be WP7 on a Nokia device. He also stated that he wasn't happy because the lighting wasn't right in a picture due to his own failure. *gasp*
...Goes to show that you can enforce rules where no harm was done in order to "save face." At the _same time_ you can do things you can't be openly "caught" with, such as hiring non-qualified employees because you "know them" or were in the same "[insert group here]" as them in the past.
/friendly_sarcasm
Not trying to be an ass, for the record. Sharing information. Hopefully I'm not doing a horrid thing like Mr. Ex-Microsoft. ;-)
I wonder how the companies with these ridiculous caps will promote the next technology... "blaze through your data cap in no time with our new technology..." I always argued that data caps would become a problem, and made room for companies to put users in a tight spot and charge them more money... now its going to start to show as things progress from here. I still believe that any company promoting high speeds with data caps should be regulated and forced to follow strict pricing guidelines.. of course that will never happen... if you cant support a network at speeds you claim uncapped, or at least more reasonably, then you just shouldn't offer it.
I hear ya... I believe that the companies will simply state that there *is no data cap*, then limit the speeds accordingly - Here's my view of the future (lol) --
Rando: "Why is my speed so slow? I have 4G and it's unlimited." -- .3Mbps download no matter which speedtest.net server location I choose. Problem is definitely on your end. My current CID is 77532189, LAC is 16554. Same LAC/CID pair was just as powerful and operating with a consistent 20+Mbps up until this month." --
Wireless PHO (pointy-haired operator): "Ma'am, you do have unlimited 4G, I see that.. It looks like you may be in an area with a lot of interference and that is probably limiting your speed. You may want to talk with the power company, the water company, the city, the electric company, NASA, television companies, well..... anyone who transmits anything on any part of the RF spectrum. It's their fault not ours. They are out of control!" --
Rando: "I have five bars and my signal strength is -50dBm, ASU is maxed out. Your tower site, 114R7884, is within less than a quarter of a mile from me right now and I'm standing outside. Connected bandwidth is
Wireless PHO: "I am supposed to end the conversation with anyone who knows what dBm means, and if they mention CID, I am supposed to play dumb, spout unofficial information, and slam my phone. We do not use anything called a CID for bandwidth limitations, ma'am. Have a great day ma'am, and thank you for choosing xxxxx Wireless, the fastest wireless data company in the world, ma'am. *boom-click*"
Yet another 3D triangle in the market - speed, coverage area size (small or large), price. You only get three of the four, in relational terms. :)
It's psychologically about status and 'first-to-play'.
Many, MANY people want to be the 'first to have [something]', and many others want to live in the world of being 'above the rest'.
Those desires, combined with the limitations of usage imposed by the provider, equal profit in the end. Nice equation; been used for years.
Add shame on to the end and you have a winner (e.g. "I uh... MEANT to use 20x my data cap this month because it was ummm.. important stuff that I needed and I uhh.. planned on it ahead of time!")
Just what I was thinking. If the test didn't include at least 200 devices (VERY conservative estimate) on each network node then the results might as well have been on a dedicated landline.
LOL! No kidding. How many comment pages could be filled with reference links to "false representations" from corporations in the past that looked "so damn fine" when they came out? :)
So now I can hit my 5 GB cap in less than 30 minutes. Hurray!
I'll bite on this one.
The overage charges will pay for the providers' hardware overhauls in 6 months or less. I betcha, I betcha.
4G's lower-layer method is MIMO. With much less battery life, of course reception and transmission overall efficiency will be increased. There will be a loss with said increase, like every other balance.
I don't like the battery life of my Samsung Infuse with AT&T with HSPA+; I can't imagine how bad it would be with 4G. Of course, it is said that my Infuse supports firmware update to upgrade to LTE when it comes to fruition, but I will bet money that AT&T will say that it can't and charge for upgrade.
Given battery life and lack of need (plus data amount limitations), I see no reason to upgrade. There's nothing for the phone to do that requires more than 3Mbps, anyway.
Isn't that hilarious?
"You have excelled in speed, now use it fast because yo' cap ain't gonna last more than a couple o' minutes."
I guess I can pull up the weather maps and check the daily forecast to stay under my limit; it will pop up faster than it did before. Wooooowwwwwwwww.
/sarcasm
I'll answer your question - It's called "bias."
Once someone has seen something and developed their opinion on it, almost everything they see from that point on is driven in the direction they wish it to be. Note: read past this next statement BEFORE you develop an opinion, readers. I suspect (but don't have scientific evidence) that it's related to loss of time and ego - i.e. one spends three months studying something deeply, with revelations, then is suddenly hit with information that discredits it wholly. Said person is not likely to change their opinion simply because it (subconsciously) renders the last three months' worth of time worthless and lowers their intelligent ego factor. Example: See the article here. It represents the finding that solar flares don't specifically come from a single area of the sun; they can simultaneously come from multiple areas - new discovery. Scientists have to expand their minds. Let's see how many do and how many try to prove it's BS.
What I'm saying is that I'm not FOR or AGAINST global warming being a fact. I'm saying that there is evidence for it AND against it, and those who have chosen their path stick with it.
Open-mindedness and reverse of thought have always been and (probably) always will be a "bad" in politics and science. Everyone is supposed to have evidence of their opinion and stick with it or they are devalued. No one wants to be devalued, so they play the social game as it stands.
End statement: it isn't that no one cares; it's that the ones who care either have their mind set on the + or the -. The ones who don't and are looking for new evidence to help lead them one way or another are always disappointed in the end because of the bickering of the above + or - groups.
I'm going to be marked as flamebait or troll is modded because a fact of psychology is that people don't like psychological projection and often engage in displacement as a result. I said I don't have an opinion and am helping to provide insight as to why things aren't progressing, but since people do not see me as being "FOR their opinion", it's automagically converted to hate in their mind. I've studied psychology, so I'm with ya on the whole "I know a lot but...", eldavojohn.
Of course it benefits you. It makes you "hip" and satisfies your curiosity, both at the same time! Just get one and you'll find out.
Whoa. Some advertisement just channeled itself through me. How did that happen?
I responded from a non-logged-in device. Sorry about that. Anonymous was me.
There is absolutely no danger in using stem cell to treat a fatal disease. So what if your stem cell injection may cause cancer in 2 years if your current disease will cause death in 6 months? Patients who are close to death should be allowed to opt into almost any treatment that has a plausible chance of success (unlike therapies which are proven frauds, like homeopathy, etc.)
You have a good point.. But try really hard to imagine that you're an insurance corporate executive (or someone right below that) that makes the decisions on whether these things are good or bad for the possibility of Human happiness -vs- your bonus at the end of the fiscal quarter based on the company's profits. Who would you (the corp person) choose? Yourself with more money and less work, or the good of the people which means more work and less money....? Don't think about answering on your OWN belief set. Answer that on behalf of the corp person who, themself, probably doesn't have cancer or any other major ailments that have changed their viewpoint on life.
Unfortunately, our government and economic system MAY BE BETTER than many others in the world (and in history), but one area it's SELFISH in is HEALTH.
What I said doesn't account for individual scientists or people who want health to be a priority; they're just overpowered and over-moneyed by others (I'll use that phrase :)).
I'm not trying to be mean or trollin' - I'm just pointing out what's before my eyes and in the bills that come in the mail almost every single day.
Some even see the renewable energy industry as a government-backed Goliath to the fossil energy industry's David, the underdog just trying to make an honest buck. Hilarious.
Well, when you've got uneducated minions to do the dirty work for ya.... "Man, if you would only cut us a break. We're poor good people just trying to do a good thing.. and nothing else!"
Off-topic in a way... but have you run live statistics lately, while reading, on how many pompous know-it-alls can't spell more than 90% of the words they use correctly? It's sad and hilarious. I laughed out loud when reading your comment here, after having read many other winded comments from the aforementioned in the past couple of days. I give up. I feel thy pain. Damnit, I just did it! :)
/humor
*cough cough*java*cough choke cough*
Man, I can't *choke* clear my throat today. *hack*
Of course, just because someone publishes an article claiming to find a flaw in someone else's research does not necessarially mean that the original research was flawed, either. That article has to be vetted as well. Science is slow, tedious, and a lot more ambiguous than the media has made it out to be.
Exactly. That's why we still continue to argue for and against global warming as a Human-created event. Everyone can argue it to death, but until there is hard evidence that is beyond a shadow of a doubt, it will just be argument. The data won't be present in our lifetime, so it must be something to argue over when we're bored... or something to that effect.