Then why isn't internet access in US cities any good? They're no larger than in other parts of the world, and those other places seem to be able to offer decent, cheap internet for anyone interested...
You mean Windows XP mode? It gives you a (usually-invisible) VM, and you can export apps from that VM to your desktop, so they run in their own windows. I've used it and it's absolutely genius.
The partnerships are still there. Bush created the power vacuum, not Obama. It's rather apt to blame Bush for the invasion of Iraq, as he chose to invade it. You thinking it has nothing to do with it is incredibly telling.
He was talking relatively. Clearly people are not equating a single 50$ lightning rod with the shifting of the entire global industry to green technologies. Only an idiot would think that - oh, it's Bartles. My apologies;)
Amongh many other things, with carbon credits you get less CO2 pumped into the atmosphere, giving humanity more time to come up with a solution, and a method of partially funding it at the same time. It would help you to know what you're complaining about before doing so, in order to differentiate you from some ignorant talk radio listener railing against whatever his chosen broadcaster hates this week. I know it's tempting to post pithy one-liners in order to try to make a point, but when the one liners merely illustrate your lack of understanding, it's not particularly beneficial to the discussion, or to you, to do so.
Microsoft Terminal Services Client is ever so difficult to remember! I wonder why people haven't died simply trying to remember it - these MS bastards should be taken to court!
The toys of the rich become the tools of the poor, when given enough time. Yes, the rich will get all this stuff soon, but eventually, if successful, they will become so cheap everyone will have (or be able to have, should they wish) one.
Anyone who is enthusiastic about something might overemphasise its abilities, especially if they are trying to sell it. If you know that you won't get quite so offended or surprised by these pitches not precisely panning out in the long run, saving us from having to read the age-old faux-outrage responses again and again and again every time someone attempts to introduce a new way of doing things.
The petty ramblings of billionaire technologists are allowing you to read what I'm writing, so I'm not sure you can call it mostly drivel...
You are absolutely pathetic. Are you really that scared you feel you need to create such ridiculous straw men in order to besmirch a religion? Don't you realise that for every one of these comments you shit out you only make yourself look like some ignorant, intolerant, 19th century muppet, scared and confused, lashing out at that which you don't understand? Of course not - you're a xenophobe. You probably think you're doing the right thing.
It would help you to read how and why vaccines work before arguing against their efficacy. As it is you are reinforcing the "science-ignorant anti-vaxxer" stereotype with such childish errors. Actually, that's pretty mean, as plenty of children understand how vaccination works, having been taught about Edward Jenner and his work in 1796, and the subsequent discoveries and developments in the field of immunology.
Or are you happy sounding like an under-educated person, cheerfully spouting abject nonsense like some massive beacon of ignorance for all to see?
It's never irreversible, the question is will we be around to (and capable of) stopping it? And if we are, what damage would the changes in climate do to humanity?
If you can't see the one particularly interesting difference between millions of years ago and today, you really should sit down in a quiet room and think.
That says absolutely nothing about them downgrading *anything*. It merely states that some devices might not be compatible (and so don't get the upgrade at all), or be missing certain hardware support and therefore unable to make use of all Windows 10 features. Nowhere does that mention downgrades or time-limits. They have to have these disclaimers as otherwise someone with an edge-case piece of hardware which simply can not run Windows 10 can sue the shit out of MS for not getting Windows 10. If this confuses or surprises you, it's not a problem with MS, but with your understanding of liability and hardware requirements.
Spending ~0.05% of the GDP is not "very detrimental", surely. Spending far more than that to mitigate the displaced communities, displaced farmland (yes, that is a thing), and the new and exciting pests and diseases sounds like a far worse deal to me (and to anyone else who actually could be bothered to read what the IPCC has been saying).
Proving AGW bogus would get a scientist a Nobel prize and all the funding they wanted for the rest of their life. One has to wonder why this hasn't happened, if it's such nonsense.
You are welcome to your opinion, but unless you can show how the scientists are wrong, your opinion is, well, worthless. You also need to show how basic physics is wrong, and how CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. There is, in fact, so much you need to show is wrong for you to be right. You need to overhaul great swathes of science (from biology, chemistry, and physics) for you to be right. Get cracking! You make it sound easy, which makes me wonder why you haven't spent your required 30 minutes and won a Nobel prize?
You mentioning "liberal" isn't helping your cause. Reality has no political ideology, and you trying to shoe-horn that into the discussion merely illustrates the reason for you not wanting AGW to exist, and denying its existence, even though I'm pretty sure you understand that people with a modicum of understanding of this field can see you are really confused on the matter, and clutching whatever straws you can in order to make your wishes come true, kind of like some kid with a lucky stone or something equally irrational.
But good luck - I wish you were right, but the facts say otherwise.
Your argument is, well, pathetic. I hate to be so rude, but that's the only response your little dabble in the discussion is worth. You sound absolutely desperate and entirely illogical.
Legislative compromise on this subject is akin to compromising on putting a fire out - unless it's all put out, the fire continues.
Scientists just want to get accurate data and draw (possibly temporary) conclusions from it. That's it. They have got the data, and it's convincing to anyone without an axe to grind. They've done their part - it's people sticking their fingers in their ears, suddenly becoming armchair climatologists, or simply not caring about future generations which are causing these issues.
Hint: When you have to disparage science in order to make your argument viable, your argument just might be absolute shit. Creationists try this, geocentrists try this, and Scientologists also. You're in good company.
The "hiatus" you speak of is not a stop in global warming, but a slight decrease in the rate of warming. You phrasing it like that makes it sound that you don't think there has been any warming during the "hiatus", which is patently untrue, and reflects very poorly on you...
Slashdot Mirror
Then why isn't internet access in US cities any good? They're no larger than in other parts of the world, and those other places seem to be able to offer decent, cheap internet for anyone interested...
You mean Windows XP mode? It gives you a (usually-invisible) VM, and you can export apps from that VM to your desktop, so they run in their own windows. I've used it and it's absolutely genius.
The partnerships are still there. Bush created the power vacuum, not Obama. It's rather apt to blame Bush for the invasion of Iraq, as he chose to invade it. You thinking it has nothing to do with it is incredibly telling.
He was talking relatively. Clearly people are not equating a single 50$ lightning rod with the shifting of the entire global industry to green technologies. Only an idiot would think that - oh, it's Bartles. My apologies ;)
Amongh many other things, with carbon credits you get less CO2 pumped into the atmosphere, giving humanity more time to come up with a solution, and a method of partially funding it at the same time. It would help you to know what you're complaining about before doing so, in order to differentiate you from some ignorant talk radio listener railing against whatever his chosen broadcaster hates this week. I know it's tempting to post pithy one-liners in order to try to make a point, but when the one liners merely illustrate your lack of understanding, it's not particularly beneficial to the discussion, or to you, to do so.
Apart from it being a free upgrade for Windows 7 users, you are entirely right! Rabble rabble rabble!
Better performance for free is neither unjustified or expensibe.
But it will work. Windows 10 is free if acquired in the first year of release. Is this so hard to understand?
Microsoft Terminal Services Client is ever so difficult to remember! I wonder why people haven't died simply trying to remember it - these MS bastards should be taken to court!
The toys of the rich become the tools of the poor, when given enough time. Yes, the rich will get all this stuff soon, but eventually, if successful, they will become so cheap everyone will have (or be able to have, should they wish) one.
Anyone who is enthusiastic about something might overemphasise its abilities, especially if they are trying to sell it. If you know that you won't get quite so offended or surprised by these pitches not precisely panning out in the long run, saving us from having to read the age-old faux-outrage responses again and again and again every time someone attempts to introduce a new way of doing things.
The petty ramblings of billionaire technologists are allowing you to read what I'm writing, so I'm not sure you can call it mostly drivel...
You are absolutely pathetic. Are you really that scared you feel you need to create such ridiculous straw men in order to besmirch a religion? Don't you realise that for every one of these comments you shit out you only make yourself look like some ignorant, intolerant, 19th century muppet, scared and confused, lashing out at that which you don't understand? Of course not - you're a xenophobe. You probably think you're doing the right thing.
If you believe that you are really ill-informed, no pun intended.
It would help you to read how and why vaccines work before arguing against their efficacy. As it is you are reinforcing the "science-ignorant anti-vaxxer" stereotype with such childish errors. Actually, that's pretty mean, as plenty of children understand how vaccination works, having been taught about Edward Jenner and his work in 1796, and the subsequent discoveries and developments in the field of immunology.
Or are you happy sounding like an under-educated person, cheerfully spouting abject nonsense like some massive beacon of ignorance for all to see?
It's never irreversible, the question is will we be around to (and capable of) stopping it? And if we are, what damage would the changes in climate do to humanity?
If you can't see the one particularly interesting difference between millions of years ago and today, you really should sit down in a quiet room and think.
And the answers are:
a) Yes
b) Yes
c) Yes
to a very acceptable level of accuracy.
Seeing as subscriptions for windows were made up by the author of the linked articles, you can probably calm down, breathe, and unbunch your knickers.
So much opinion, so little substance. Nice way to fly off the handle like a drama queen. Really good work.
That says absolutely nothing about them downgrading *anything*. It merely states that some devices might not be compatible (and so don't get the upgrade at all), or be missing certain hardware support and therefore unable to make use of all Windows 10 features. Nowhere does that mention downgrades or time-limits. They have to have these disclaimers as otherwise someone with an edge-case piece of hardware which simply can not run Windows 10 can sue the shit out of MS for not getting Windows 10. If this confuses or surprises you, it's not a problem with MS, but with your understanding of liability and hardware requirements.
We do know - you have chosen to not know.
Models not necessary
The science is settled, and models are not required for it to be settled - that is just a criterion you came up with.
Spending ~0.05% of the GDP is not "very detrimental", surely. Spending far more than that to mitigate the displaced communities, displaced farmland (yes, that is a thing), and the new and exciting pests and diseases sounds like a far worse deal to me (and to anyone else who actually could be bothered to read what the IPCC has been saying).
Proving AGW bogus would get a scientist a Nobel prize and all the funding they wanted for the rest of their life. One has to wonder why this hasn't happened, if it's such nonsense.
You are welcome to your opinion, but unless you can show how the scientists are wrong, your opinion is, well, worthless. You also need to show how basic physics is wrong, and how CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. There is, in fact, so much you need to show is wrong for you to be right. You need to overhaul great swathes of science (from biology, chemistry, and physics) for you to be right. Get cracking! You make it sound easy, which makes me wonder why you haven't spent your required 30 minutes and won a Nobel prize?
You mentioning "liberal" isn't helping your cause. Reality has no political ideology, and you trying to shoe-horn that into the discussion merely illustrates the reason for you not wanting AGW to exist, and denying its existence, even though I'm pretty sure you understand that people with a modicum of understanding of this field can see you are really confused on the matter, and clutching whatever straws you can in order to make your wishes come true, kind of like some kid with a lucky stone or something equally irrational.
But good luck - I wish you were right, but the facts say otherwise.
Your argument is, well, pathetic. I hate to be so rude, but that's the only response your little dabble in the discussion is worth. You sound absolutely desperate and entirely illogical.
Legislative compromise on this subject is akin to compromising on putting a fire out - unless it's all put out, the fire continues.
Scientists just want to get accurate data and draw (possibly temporary) conclusions from it. That's it. They have got the data, and it's convincing to anyone without an axe to grind. They've done their part - it's people sticking their fingers in their ears, suddenly becoming armchair climatologists, or simply not caring about future generations which are causing these issues.
Hint: When you have to disparage science in order to make your argument viable, your argument just might be absolute shit. Creationists try this, geocentrists try this, and Scientologists also. You're in good company.
The "hiatus" you speak of is not a stop in global warming, but a slight decrease in the rate of warming. You phrasing it like that makes it sound that you don't think there has been any warming during the "hiatus", which is patently untrue, and reflects very poorly on you...