I've been thinking that temperature and pressure sensors would be a great app enabler on cell phones. Kudos to Google and the Android device makers then.
I'm not arguing that climatology should not make such inferences. I am arguing that we should not confuse those inferences with facts in their own right, and that doing so and then shouting down anyone who points to problems with those inferences as "disagreeing with facts" leads to poor outcomes.
a month to gather all the parts that were not included to the car, but were necessary to its basic operation,
another two months to find all the parts that those parts depend on,
a week to assemble the car correctly,
a few hours to build the custom security system in LISP so that I could open the doors, plus a day to make sure I'd configured and tested all the various access permissions needed to do each task (at first, I forgot the glove box permissions, and since that's where the starter is for some reason located...),
three weeks of reading semi-literate documentation that assumes I already know everything about materials engineering, calculus and thermodynamics to figure out how to turn it on and not have it immediately wreck the engine (by the way, those four ruined engines were, cumulatively, expensive),
three days dealing with the guy in Finland who flamed me when I complained about ruining the second engine for not knowing how to do something as simple as machining my own camshaft,
oh, yeah, and a week to machine my own camshaft.
But I've now got a completely running GNU/Car. Just one quick question: my lawyer just got back to me on the license terms. Do I really have to let my neighbor use the car whenever he wants? Because that sounds wrong.
I can't possibly disagree. What little I know about him doesn't fill me with hope of good leadership and sound, wise lawmaking. But apologizing to the world for him is equivalent to apologizing for your fellow citizens self-governing, which the OP is in no way appointed or elected to do.
Gah. My own fault for commenting on/. from a phone without looking at the preview. But seriously, it ticks me off. I mean, I think Obama's been a disaster, but that doesn't make it my place to go apologizing to the world about it.
You have to account, though, for the truth that not all things claimed to be facts, particularly in politicized subjects, are actually facts. For example, temperature measurements are facts, though their accuracy can be questioned. Global temperature, though, is not a fact: it is an extraction on facts (the temperature readings) filtered through assumptions and patches (like assuming that temperature changes smoothly and uniformly between places where temperatures are measured). On top of those extrapolations, people have layered conclusions, some of which are reasonable (which does not make them facts but inferences), some of which are not. But it's pretty clear that just arguing that AGW is a fact won't get you anywhere, because the totality of what is commonly meant by that term is not a fact or set of facts, though it does include some facts, even if it later turns out to have reached a correct conclusion. "Shut up" is rarely an effective argument.
Except for the Internet of course. The Internet was designed with resiliency in mind, but the practical implementation of it has ended up being highly prone to failure, mostly because effectively all routing is over a limited number of backbone networks, sharing a small number of interconnects. It doesn't help practical resiliency to be able to take any route from A to B, when only one possible route is provided.
More correctly, the student is a source of income for the school. The school is protecting its funding. Change the insane funding scheme based on student-days, and the costs of this system would not longer make sense, and it would go away.
Are you? If not, then on what basis do you propose that he shut down due to absence of authority that you yourself lack? And if you are, then have you not heard of a logical fallacy ad hominem? Perhaps you should either address his arguments or, in your words, please fuck off.
I did at first, until the Dems started using the term as well. Now it doesn't bug me so much. But if we start into what drives us nuts about politics, and political labeling in particular, there is no escape: we'll be making lists for a long time.
The world's opinion is irrelevant to our elections. As to the accuraacy of sabremetrics applied to politics in a situation where the only metrics are subjective polls with a veneer of objectivity (becuase the results are expressed numerically), let's talk Wednesday.
My point was if that 2.25% were required to be paid to each of 10 companies, than the total would be 22.5%, not that the amount to just one of those companies would be 22.5%. (That would, obviously, still be 2.25%.) Given that there are more than 10 companies that have patents that would have to be licensed, and several of them (Nokia, for example) have larger bodies of standards-essential patents than Motorola, the 2.25% just for Motorola patents appears, at first blush and without further information, to violate the "reasonable" part of FRAND, and likely the ND part as well.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been thinking that temperature and pressure sensors would be a great app enabler on cell phones. Kudos to Google and the Android device makers then.
I'm not arguing that climatology should not make such inferences. I am arguing that we should not confuse those inferences with facts in their own right, and that doing so and then shouting down anyone who points to problems with those inferences as "disagreeing with facts" leads to poor outcomes.
But I've now got a completely running GNU/Car. Just one quick question: my lawyer just got back to me on the license terms. Do I really have to let my neighbor use the car whenever he wants? Because that sounds wrong.
I can't possibly disagree. What little I know about him doesn't fill me with hope of good leadership and sound, wise lawmaking. But apologizing to the world for him is equivalent to apologizing for your fellow citizens self-governing, which the OP is in no way appointed or elected to do.
Actually, they are home schooled. And their Latin, Greek and German are better than my typing.
Gah. My own fault for commenting on /. from a phone without looking at the preview. But seriously, it ticks me off. I mean, I think Obama's been a disaster, but that doesn't make it my place to go apologizing to the world about it.
What the fuck qualifies you to speak on behalf of the Uniyed States?
You have to account, though, for the truth that not all things claimed to be facts, particularly in politicized subjects, are actually facts. For example, temperature measurements are facts, though their accuracy can be questioned. Global temperature, though, is not a fact: it is an extraction on facts (the temperature readings) filtered through assumptions and patches (like assuming that temperature changes smoothly and uniformly between places where temperatures are measured). On top of those extrapolations, people have layered conclusions, some of which are reasonable (which does not make them facts but inferences), some of which are not. But it's pretty clear that just arguing that AGW is a fact won't get you anywhere, because the totality of what is commonly meant by that term is not a fact or set of facts, though it does include some facts, even if it later turns out to have reached a correct conclusion. "Shut up" is rarely an effective argument.
Now, instead of not passing laws, we're passing laws to not pass laws?
Except for the Internet of course. The Internet was designed with resiliency in mind, but the practical implementation of it has ended up being highly prone to failure, mostly because effectively all routing is over a limited number of backbone networks, sharing a small number of interconnects. It doesn't help practical resiliency to be able to take any route from A to B, when only one possible route is provided.
More correctly, the student is a source of income for the school. The school is protecting its funding. Change the insane funding scheme based on student-days, and the costs of this system would not longer make sense, and it would go away.
Are you? If not, then on what basis do you propose that he shut down due to absence of authority that you yourself lack? And if you are, then have you not heard of a logical fallacy ad hominem? Perhaps you should either address his arguments or, in your words, please fuck off.
And Mitt Romney has what to do with this? The PE backers of Hostess are large Dem contributors.
FSF are not necessarily "in their right mind."
Absolutely. I'd love to see the OpenDoc concept applied to iOS.
gah - posting to undo an accidental moderation
OK, so apparently that works, then.
I did at first, until the Dems started using the term as well. Now it doesn't bug me so much. But if we start into what drives us nuts about politics, and political labeling in particular, there is no escape: we'll be making lists for a long time.
The world's opinion is irrelevant to our elections. As to the accuraacy of sabremetrics applied to politics in a situation where the only metrics are subjective polls with a veneer of objectivity (becuase the results are expressed numerically), let's talk Wednesday.
Fair enough. Still drives me nuts, though.
I'm not sure if that was meant to refer to something I said or not. If so, I'm quite curious what you were referring to.
Perhaps, but both 'fanboi' and 'fandroid' are automatic signals that the person writing the post turned off their brain.
That makes no sense. "How far behind" in what sense?
My point was if that 2.25% were required to be paid to each of 10 companies, than the total would be 22.5%, not that the amount to just one of those companies would be 22.5%. (That would, obviously, still be 2.25%.) Given that there are more than 10 companies that have patents that would have to be licensed, and several of them (Nokia, for example) have larger bodies of standards-essential patents than Motorola, the 2.25% just for Motorola patents appears, at first blush and without further information, to violate the "reasonable" part of FRAND, and likely the ND part as well.
To the casual reader, your last sentence cut the estimate of your apparent IQ in half.