I think you'd find if you did your research that Linux is actually dominating a lot of things because of its openness. From elevators to super computers, from Internet servers to render farms, and even those video lottery terminals and digital picture frames. One of the great advantages of Linux is not even needing to know its there when the device works properly.
Actually if you think about it, Windows is open in the same way that Android is as far as applications go, where the iPhone is closed.
That is to say, I can install any software I want on my Android phone (one checkbox in the settings to turn off 'android market only'), and any software I want on a Windows machine too. This ability to run random crapware as well as freely available good software helped propel Windows, along with a fairly complete API. To annoy my fellow Linux geeks, Android is more like Windows in that regard:)
At least some enterprise SCSI hard drives share data between each other so as to predict when each others' head movements will affect other drives. When four (for example) drives are mounted vertically under each other in a cage of any form, the sudden movement of the drive head for one drive induces some momentum in the nearby drives. Attempting to compensate for this leads to better performance whether people are aware of it happening or not, and thus higher sales.
Whenever possible I test drives (along with other components) mounted in the system they will be used in to assess accurate situational performance. Drive performance solo on a table is not nearly as useful if you do in fact have more than one drive in use.
At home I use Antec cases with vibration isolation mounts, FYI.
Skewing your attention to any group makes your detection system defeatable.
As soon as a test group is sent through the airport and you detect what is being ignored by the guards, you simply need to find one of those (grandmothers in your example) and send one through who's willing to do what you want, or unwitting enough to participate unknowingly.
Only completely random scans of some percentage of the population will result in proper statistical detection.
No, you expect all sceptics are sceptical for the same reasons as though we have a hive-mind or something.
I have my doubts that humans are in fact causing an important percentage of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. As I understand it, those doubts are well-founded and very hard to prove one way or the other (timelines do not establish cause and effect, they establish coincidence. There's a massive difference).
I also have my doubts that any theory requiring the stifling of opposition is good science if it can't stand on its own.
All that said, if I'm wrong and there is a meter rise in sea levels in some drastically short period of time, I'm with the evolutionists: we shouldn't be living in easily flooded areas just because they're pretty and expect to survive.
Also noteworthy is that the costs of relocation have nothing to do with good science. That's just politics and/or economics. Whether it will cost money to adjust our society shouldn't influence our ability to do good science.
Its the same behaviour on the part of the climate change proponents as they're upset about by the AGW crowd.
Its quite ironic how despite their models not actually working and their predictions not coming true and our temperatures not matching predicted increases, not to mention their inability to explain why chaos theory suddenly doesn't exist, they're willing to tar sceptical thinkers the same way they feel they're being tarred by the media.
The media's job in my little world is to present both sides. If they didn't, I wouldn't be consuming it. News agencies who do nothing but print press releases in the computer industry are called names. But when it comes to scientists, that's exactly what they're expected to do? I think not.
Feel free to reverse what you said about fundamentalists and apply it to the whackos who believe our carbon output outstrips that of dying trees (and other natural causes).
it applies both ways.
I see a lot of fundamentalist whackos on the "science" side of the fence too. And they're not promoting good science, just like the big bang will never be good science.
Good data and repeatable results. How about hypotheses based on the theory in question that result in accurate predictions?
Climatologists have not successfully predicted climate outcomes. Astrophysicists are still figuring out where all the mass of the universe is and why our numbers don't match up to the existing theories. No wonder people who can read and think for themselves don't blindly accept these things.
Feel free to come forward with logical assumptions you're making when you speak and it won't bother me one bit. "Assuming the universe started with a big bang (as defined x or y), the universe should be expanding at an ever decreasing rate and that should cause... which we can test for by.... "
Some people just can't get their heads around the egos involved. Work with a few scientists for a while and you'll notice how often egos get in the way of data.
And you're not just a loudmouth on the internet? The numbers scientists are publishing don't add up. That's well established and deserves debate.
Their models haven't come true, which means their models are faulty. That's what science is all about.
Here's a clue for you: getting published has a lot to do with grant funding, not good science. A lot of good science is done in home basements and garages and gardens every day of the year and isn't published. A lot of good science is being well-funded by groups who don't want the results published too.
As the parent did to the GP's point, why don't you refute what he said, instead of ranting like an internet lunatic. You don't have any numbers to show he's wrong either, do you?
Critical thinking is about thinking, not being subdued easily by the masses.
Certainly! Just give me access to the raw, un-adjusted data that these scientists have been hoarding for decades. Oh wait, they keep destroying it. Also, lets look at what their models from 10 years ago predicted that the weather would be for the next 10 years and compare to the historical record. Those are supposed to be accurate, right?
That would be good science. The climatologists pushing this agenda aren't into good science or they'd let their findings stand on their own instead of pursuing this politically as they already have.
I think its rich that a group of scientists is complaining about legitimate backlash from the media for legitimate issues they've had with their science instead of just admitting that they screwed up, as they've done before.
I'd love to know what this letter would've looked like before we knew about wave theory, or relativity, or before chaos theory (although it seems climatologists do ignore that one regularly). We'd be hearing about how matter is made up of particles which have neatly orbiting electrons because this hadn't been refuted yet, as though you have to agree with every long-standing theory that hasn't been refuted to be a good little boy or girl.
Many of those points are in fact being refuted by the "naysayers".
The debate is being quashed by those who agree with the points you've just made, instead of being debated.
Those on the side of "massive human effect on climate change that can be reversed by social changes" (as I like to say) have quality assurance and record keeping issues in some cases that have made themselves look bad. That's not my fault, or anyone else's but their own.
Do good science or suffer the consequences. In this case I'd argue the climatologists didn't do good science. In fact, as far as I've read, they're not even documenting their assumptions.
That comment irk'd me too. I've seen what the author's talking about, where people use a keyboard to change the selection on-screen in a video terminal (NCIS) or the like, but for the most part I use only a keyboard when computing too.
I run Linux sure, but even on Windows machines I used before, I had no problem computing primarily with a keyboard and shortcuts for a long time.
Some things are obviously better with a mouse, but a lot of things done slowly with a mouse are done much more easily with keyboard shortcuts and typed commands. Maybe he should talk to someone who uses AutoCAD professionally.
You do realize that leaving a huge gaping security hole open would hurt their pocket book a lot more, right? Closing the loophole and keeping all those game licensees coming is much more important.
If you can't understand that, you forget they're selling a game console.
That's not trolling mods, just cause you don't agree with something doesn't make it a troll. It was and still is a valid point.
Back in the day, a DLink 530TX tech specs said it used an Realtek chipset. Another one I got says it used a completely different chipset. DLink changed chipsets (and related functionality) as often as I change socks it seems.
Did the product warrant a class-action suit because I expected a Realtek chipset when I bought the next card? No. Because the functionality they actually claimed it would have was all there in all the chipset versions.
Then the sysadmin is improperly placed in your hierarchy.
Sysadmins have the keys to the city, so to speak. They are hired to be trusted and responsible with those keys.
"Following orders" is never a good enough excuse for doing something you think is wrong. A trial is a decent way to find out if you were right. Standing up for what you believe in is certainly better than caving to any employer request you're given.
Slashdot Mirror
The apps available from that link is not exhaustive. They are 'most popular' only, as the titles imply.
See this graph for a better view of the numbers.
Android doesn't run Java.
Next FUD please.
I think you'd find if you did your research that Linux is actually dominating a lot of things because of its openness. From elevators to super computers, from Internet servers to render farms, and even those video lottery terminals and digital picture frames. One of the great advantages of Linux is not even needing to know its there when the device works properly.
Hopefully they're being bought by geeks who want to hack with it.
Unfortunately I think they're being purchased by people who won't want to use them in six months.
Either way, I'd much rather have an Android tablet with pretty widgets and existing multi-resolution app infrastructure.
Actually if you think about it, Windows is open in the same way that Android is as far as applications go, where the iPhone is closed.
That is to say, I can install any software I want on my Android phone (one checkbox in the settings to turn off 'android market only'), and any software I want on a Windows machine too. This ability to run random crapware as well as freely available good software helped propel Windows, along with a fairly complete API. To annoy my fellow Linux geeks, Android is more like Windows in that regard :)
At least some enterprise SCSI hard drives share data between each other so as to predict when each others' head movements will affect other drives. When four (for example) drives are mounted vertically under each other in a cage of any form, the sudden movement of the drive head for one drive induces some momentum in the nearby drives. Attempting to compensate for this leads to better performance whether people are aware of it happening or not, and thus higher sales.
Whenever possible I test drives (along with other components) mounted in the system they will be used in to assess accurate situational performance. Drive performance solo on a table is not nearly as useful if you do in fact have more than one drive in use.
At home I use Antec cases with vibration isolation mounts, FYI.
That would depend on your state. There are some scary precedents out there.
It doesn't matter if you live. Die.
Skewing your attention to any group makes your detection system defeatable.
As soon as a test group is sent through the airport and you detect what is being ignored by the guards, you simply need to find one of those (grandmothers in your example) and send one through who's willing to do what you want, or unwitting enough to participate unknowingly.
Only completely random scans of some percentage of the population will result in proper statistical detection.
I keep seeing all these great press releases about how the definition on the images is too low to be indecent, and yet this incident happens.
If it possible to end up making fun of a man for the size of his genitals, the system is too intrusive. Period.
No, you expect all sceptics are sceptical for the same reasons as though we have a hive-mind or something.
I have my doubts that humans are in fact causing an important percentage of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. As I understand it, those doubts are well-founded and very hard to prove one way or the other (timelines do not establish cause and effect, they establish coincidence. There's a massive difference).
I also have my doubts that any theory requiring the stifling of opposition is good science if it can't stand on its own.
All that said, if I'm wrong and there is a meter rise in sea levels in some drastically short period of time, I'm with the evolutionists: we shouldn't be living in easily flooded areas just because they're pretty and expect to survive.
Also noteworthy is that the costs of relocation have nothing to do with good science. That's just politics and/or economics. Whether it will cost money to adjust our society shouldn't influence our ability to do good science.
Its the same behaviour on the part of the climate change proponents as they're upset about by the AGW crowd.
Its quite ironic how despite their models not actually working and their predictions not coming true and our temperatures not matching predicted increases, not to mention their inability to explain why chaos theory suddenly doesn't exist, they're willing to tar sceptical thinkers the same way they feel they're being tarred by the media.
The media's job in my little world is to present both sides. If they didn't, I wouldn't be consuming it. News agencies who do nothing but print press releases in the computer industry are called names. But when it comes to scientists, that's exactly what they're expected to do? I think not.
Feel free to reverse what you said about fundamentalists and apply it to the whackos who believe our carbon output outstrips that of dying trees (and other natural causes).
it applies both ways.
I see a lot of fundamentalist whackos on the "science" side of the fence too. And they're not promoting good science, just like the big bang will never be good science.
Good data and repeatable results. How about hypotheses based on the theory in question that result in accurate predictions?
Climatologists have not successfully predicted climate outcomes. Astrophysicists are still figuring out where all the mass of the universe is and why our numbers don't match up to the existing theories. No wonder people who can read and think for themselves don't blindly accept these things.
Feel free to come forward with logical assumptions you're making when you speak and it won't bother me one bit. "Assuming the universe started with a big bang (as defined x or y), the universe should be expanding at an ever decreasing rate and that should cause ... which we can test for by .... "
Some people just can't get their heads around the egos involved. Work with a few scientists for a while and you'll notice how often egos get in the way of data.
And you're not just a loudmouth on the internet? The numbers scientists are publishing don't add up. That's well established and deserves debate.
Their models haven't come true, which means their models are faulty. That's what science is all about.
Here's a clue for you: getting published has a lot to do with grant funding, not good science. A lot of good science is done in home basements and garages and gardens every day of the year and isn't published. A lot of good science is being well-funded by groups who don't want the results published too.
As the parent did to the GP's point, why don't you refute what he said, instead of ranting like an internet lunatic. You don't have any numbers to show he's wrong either, do you?
Critical thinking is about thinking, not being subdued easily by the masses.
That would be good science. The climatologists pushing this agenda aren't into good science or they'd let their findings stand on their own instead of pursuing this politically as they already have.
I think its rich that a group of scientists is complaining about legitimate backlash from the media for legitimate issues they've had with their science instead of just admitting that they screwed up, as they've done before.
I'd love to know what this letter would've looked like before we knew about wave theory, or relativity, or before chaos theory (although it seems climatologists do ignore that one regularly). We'd be hearing about how matter is made up of particles which have neatly orbiting electrons because this hadn't been refuted yet, as though you have to agree with every long-standing theory that hasn't been refuted to be a good little boy or girl.
Many of those points are in fact being refuted by the "naysayers".
The debate is being quashed by those who agree with the points you've just made, instead of being debated.
Those on the side of "massive human effect on climate change that can be reversed by social changes" (as I like to say) have quality assurance and record keeping issues in some cases that have made themselves look bad. That's not my fault, or anyone else's but their own.
Do good science or suffer the consequences. In this case I'd argue the climatologists didn't do good science. In fact, as far as I've read, they're not even documenting their assumptions.
Scientists in this letter are not however encouraging people to educate themselves. They're encouraging blind acceptance.
I don't care which side you agree with in any debate -- its the sign of a weak argument to require the silencing of your critics.
That comment irk'd me too. I've seen what the author's talking about, where people use a keyboard to change the selection on-screen in a video terminal (NCIS) or the like, but for the most part I use only a keyboard when computing too.
I run Linux sure, but even on Windows machines I used before, I had no problem computing primarily with a keyboard and shortcuts for a long time.
Some things are obviously better with a mouse, but a lot of things done slowly with a mouse are done much more easily with keyboard shortcuts and typed commands. Maybe he should talk to someone who uses AutoCAD professionally.
That's not trolling mods, just cause you don't agree with something doesn't make it a troll. It was and still is a valid point.
Back in the day, a DLink 530TX tech specs said it used an Realtek chipset. Another one I got says it used a completely different chipset. DLink changed chipsets (and related functionality) as often as I change socks it seems.
Did the product warrant a class-action suit because I expected a Realtek chipset when I bought the next card? No. Because the functionality they actually claimed it would have was all there in all the chipset versions.
lol why do you think I cited GM? :)
But again, I highly doubt you can successfully sue a manufacturer for the functionality of a unit outside its warranty period.
You're almost never going to jail for disobeying your employer.
You almost certainly can go to jail for things your employer asks you to do however. See Enron.
Then the sysadmin is improperly placed in your hierarchy.
Sysadmins have the keys to the city, so to speak. They are hired to be trusted and responsible with those keys.
"Following orders" is never a good enough excuse for doing something you think is wrong. A trial is a decent way to find out if you were right. Standing up for what you believe in is certainly better than caving to any employer request you're given.
Find me a car company, including Toyota, that has refunded the price of a car for a problem they can't fix without local lemon laws requiring it.
Go talk to the people with their heated seats disabled because it was deemed a safety concern with cloth seat covers.
It happens.