Hard drive manufacturers have always used the term gigabyte to mean one billion bytes. Your (implied) claim that they haven't is completely out of touch with reality.
Since it is the convention across all mass storage manufacturers, the claim of false advertising has no basis in reality, and is completely incorrect in every meaningful way.
The plaintiff is the one who is wrong, any idiot who knows anything about numbers should know that. A gigabyte is exactly one billion bites, hence the name "Giga". How can you win a case centered around a claim that is so obviously false?
I hope they got consent to perform the search first. Requiring payment for the search when they didn't explain the cost and give her the chance to opt-out beforehand would be highly unethical.
There's always a drought or a fammine or a flood or a storm somewhere in the world, you can't blame every one of them on global warming (well you can, but that would be crazy). What I'm complaining about is that there hasn't been (as far as we can tell) any kind of increase in these events. If they become more common and more severe with global warming, we should be seeing them.
The problem with the checks theory is that it would have to be CO2 sensitive, since we know that the earth has been hotter in the past. While I can't say for sure that there isn't a system that will be overwhelmed, there's no reason to believe that one exists unless you can identify it.
The problem with methane is that even though it's a greenhouse gas, it is not persistent in the atmosphere (it has a half-life of 7 years). So even though it could cause a temporary spike in temperatures if it were all released at once, it could not sustain it.
What I'm saying is: if we're already half way there, where are the effects we should be seeing today? Where are the droughts and famines and floods that everyone is talking about? Is there some reason to believe that there's a threshold value, and once we cross it the problems will begin. It seems to me that if the CO2 if trapping heat, we should see the temperature rise with CO2. That would mean that we can expect another 1/2 degree rise at the most in the next 50 years.
That's another thing that bothers me. People are talking about solving it by eliminating greenhouse gas emissions only. Wouldn't be cheaper, easier, and more effective to mitigate the effects. If sea-levels rise, move cities or build dikes. If glaciers melt, build dams to store the rainfall in their place. It seems like we should take these measures regardless of global warming anyway.
The problem is that the temperature change over the last 100 years has been so small, you can't really say that it's unusual. It also does not correlate well to CO2 concentration. Sea-level rises have been negligible.
"(over population is so much more of a threat)"
It is impossible to go extinct due to overpopulation. It is the secondary effects of overpopulation (such as global warming) that cause problems.
ID is testable. It simply assumes a creator and then requires you to hypothesize about the will of your creator. For example, you could hypothesize that your creator would design the earth's environment to be in a state of semi-stable equilibrium so that life can exist. This is a scientifically testable hypothesis.
I think that people get hung up on the fact that you can't disprove the existence you your creator using ID (since your interpretation of your creators purpose might be wrong, or your creators design might not achieve it's purpose). So in that regard, you could say that Gods existence is not a scientific theory. That does not affect the testability of a hypothesis based on the assumption of God's existence.
It bothers me that people keep talking about the hypothetical effects of global warming without any real data. CO2 levels have risen by 30%, and surface temperature have not shown enough of a trend that we can really say the temperature is even rising. Sure, there's less sea-ice than there was 30 years ago, but ocen levels have not risen.
Where's the beef? Why are people saying that we're going to see cataclysmic changes in our environment, when no appreciable changes have occured so far. What is the basis for all these predictions?
That was a good doccumentary, but the authroatirain nature of the systems really bothered me. They all employed government enforced price controls. This puts undue stress on health care providers, and makes it harder to get new doctors, nurses, hospitals and medical infrastructure in general. In other words, they are a quick-fix for prices, but they're un-sustainable in the long run, because they restrict growth.
Why would this mean anything for private insurance? They don't use genetic testing now.
And if we're talking about making new huge, intrusive government institutions, I would reccomend against a single-payer system. Controlling costs by preventing people from charging mrore just reduces the supply of available health care.
How about instead of calling it universal health care, we just call it wellfare. And how about instead of making all health-care government funded, we just use our well-fare system to provide healthcare to people who can't afford it. I don't think we need eliminate our freedom to access medical care.
If you really want to make health insurance "fair" all you need to do is pass a law saying that health insurance providers can't turn down applicants, and they have to charge everyone the same ammount for the same level coverage, regardless of any risk-factors. This wouldn't sink insurance companies, it would just raise insurance premiums and reduce the ammount of profit they could make.
I haven't seen the movie, so I don't know if this was the focal point or not. But if it was, then it would be fair to say that the movie is trying to draw parallels between scientists who subscribe to Darwinism and the Nazi officials who used Darwinism to justify ethnic cleansing. Of course, since we know that the Nazis were wrong, it may be an indication that the modern scientists who think along similar lines are also wrong. I really have to see the movie before I can say what is going on here. But you can't apply Goodwin's law to every use of the word Nazi, and it's important to realize that.
"Also, it's important to note that there is a huge difference between, "X was used to justify Y," and, "Y follows from X.""
But if X was used to justify Y, then it may mean that Y follows logically from X, no? That's usually how a justification works.
No, but it does give one pause. The fact that it was used to promote genocide makes me worry when I hear other people using it, especially in reference to government policy.
Even today it is easy to find people who hold the opinion that the state should regulate parenthood. They often site the need to promote the selection of "good" traits to counter the downfall of natural selection brought on by technology. In a very real way, these people are using Darwinian evolution to argue for establishment of a Nazi-like authoritarian government. So I think the connection is real, and important.
Of course, that doesn't make evolution wrong. It just means that you should be wary when you hear someone talking about it.
Your source is dangerously misinformed. The Eugenics movement sprang forth as a direct result of Darwin's work. It was even invented by his cousin, not that that means anything in particular.
See the wikipedia article on Darwin:
Following Darwinâ(TM)s publication of the Origin, his cousin, Francis Galton, applied the concepts to human society, starting in 1865 with ideas to promote hereditary improvement which he elaborated at length in 1869.[134] In The Descent of Man Darwin agreed that Galton had demonstrated the probability that talent and genius in humans was inherited, but dismissed the social changes Galton proposed as too utopian.[135] Neither Galton nor Darwin supported government intervention and thought that, at most, heredity should be taken into consideration by people seeking potential mates.[136] In 1883, after Darwins death, Galton began calling his social philosophy Eugenics.[137] In the 20th century, eugenics movements gained popularity in a number of countries and became associated with reproduction control programmes such as compulsory sterilisation laws,[138] then were stigmatised after their usage in the rhetoric of Nazi Germany in its goals of genetic purity.[V]
Godwins is not applicable in this context, because the movie's claim that the Nazis used Darwins theory to justify the extermination of the jews (and other parts of their ugenics program) is true. The theory of evolution was the "rational" and "scientific" basis of ugenics.
They believed that a utopian society could be created through the use of selective breeding to remove undesirable traits from the gene-pool.
Godwins applies when you make a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis, not when there is a direct connection. Otherwise, it would be practically impossible to debate facism, anti-semitism, or human experementation without violating Godwins.
I definately prefer widescreen. It just seems like I'm able to use all of the available space on a widescreen, while I can't on a standard one. That means that even though the screen is technically smaller, I can fit more stuff on it.
Seriously, the odds that any given asteroid will even impact a satellite on a particular pass are astronomical. Not anywhere near 1:450, so how could this possibly be true. I think that they may mean that *if* it impacts a satellite it will have a 1:450 chance of hitting us on it's next pass.
Just building 30 100mw plants will not give you a cost advantage. That would be like building 1000 1kw wind turbines and expecting it to cost the same as a 1mw wind turbine. That's why you build the bigger ones, lower installed cost, lower operating cost.
"You lost me on converting the $1 annual KWH running cost to the $10/watt installation cost."
$1/kwh/year = $1/(1000watt-hours per kwh/8760hours per year) = $1 / 0.11 watts therefore 1 watt of production capacity costs $8.76 (rounded to 10). The $1/kwh/year is from the wikipedia article on thermal solar power. It's probably the best number to use, since there isn't really enough data to establish a firm number.
As far as the cost of the iraq war, wikipedia says "Around $501 billion has been spent as of March 2008, based on current expenditure rates.[1]", so you're a little high.
I know it's not photovoltaic. That doesn't change the fact that it won't collect energy when there's no sunlight. That means you need to install more capacity to make up for the time when the sun isn't out.
Slashdot Mirror
Where do they get their power when there's no wind?
A kilobyte is not a gigabyte, and this lawsuit is over gigabytes.
Hard drive manufacturers have always used the term gigabyte to mean one billion bytes. Your (implied) claim that they haven't is completely out of touch with reality.
Since it is the convention across all mass storage manufacturers, the claim of false advertising has no basis in reality, and is completely incorrect in every meaningful way.
The plaintiff is the one who is wrong, any idiot who knows anything about numbers should know that. A gigabyte is exactly one billion bites, hence the name "Giga". How can you win a case centered around a claim that is so obviously false?
I hope they got consent to perform the search first. Requiring payment for the search when they didn't explain the cost and give her the chance to opt-out beforehand would be highly unethical.
There's always a drought or a fammine or a flood or a storm somewhere in the world, you can't blame every one of them on global warming (well you can, but that would be crazy). What I'm complaining about is that there hasn't been (as far as we can tell) any kind of increase in these events. If they become more common and more severe with global warming, we should be seeing them.
I have read it. The evidence is flimsy. I work as an environmental engineer for god sake. I think I know a thing or two about the environment.
The problem with the checks theory is that it would have to be CO2 sensitive, since we know that the earth has been hotter in the past. While I can't say for sure that there isn't a system that will be overwhelmed, there's no reason to believe that one exists unless you can identify it.
The problem with methane is that even though it's a greenhouse gas, it is not persistent in the atmosphere (it has a half-life of 7 years). So even though it could cause a temporary spike in temperatures if it were all released at once, it could not sustain it.
What I'm saying is: if we're already half way there, where are the effects we should be seeing today? Where are the droughts and famines and floods that everyone is talking about? Is there some reason to believe that there's a threshold value, and once we cross it the problems will begin. It seems to me that if the CO2 if trapping heat, we should see the temperature rise with CO2. That would mean that we can expect another 1/2 degree rise at the most in the next 50 years.
That's another thing that bothers me. People are talking about solving it by eliminating greenhouse gas emissions only. Wouldn't be cheaper, easier, and more effective to mitigate the effects. If sea-levels rise, move cities or build dikes. If glaciers melt, build dams to store the rainfall in their place. It seems like we should take these measures regardless of global warming anyway.
The problem is that the temperature change over the last 100 years has been so small, you can't really say that it's unusual. It also does not correlate well to CO2 concentration. Sea-level rises have been negligible.
"(over population is so much more of a threat)"
It is impossible to go extinct due to overpopulation. It is the secondary effects of overpopulation (such as global warming) that cause problems.
ID is testable. It simply assumes a creator and then requires you to hypothesize about the will of your creator. For example, you could hypothesize that your creator would design the earth's environment to be in a state of semi-stable equilibrium so that life can exist. This is a scientifically testable hypothesis.
I think that people get hung up on the fact that you can't disprove the existence you your creator using ID (since your interpretation of your creators purpose might be wrong, or your creators design might not achieve it's purpose). So in that regard, you could say that Gods existence is not a scientific theory. That does not affect the testability of a hypothesis based on the assumption of God's existence.
It bothers me that people keep talking about the hypothetical effects of global warming without any real data. CO2 levels have risen by 30%, and surface temperature have not shown enough of a trend that we can really say the temperature is even rising. Sure, there's less sea-ice than there was 30 years ago, but ocen levels have not risen.
Where's the beef? Why are people saying that we're going to see cataclysmic changes in our environment, when no appreciable changes have occured so far. What is the basis for all these predictions?
That was a good doccumentary, but the authroatirain nature of the systems really bothered me. They all employed government enforced price controls. This puts undue stress on health care providers, and makes it harder to get new doctors, nurses, hospitals and medical infrastructure in general. In other words, they are a quick-fix for prices, but they're un-sustainable in the long run, because they restrict growth.
Why would this mean anything for private insurance? They don't use genetic testing now.
And if we're talking about making new huge, intrusive government institutions, I would reccomend against a single-payer system. Controlling costs by preventing people from charging mrore just reduces the supply of available health care.
How about instead of calling it universal health care, we just call it wellfare. And how about instead of making all health-care government funded, we just use our well-fare system to provide healthcare to people who can't afford it. I don't think we need eliminate our freedom to access medical care.
If you really want to make health insurance "fair" all you need to do is pass a law saying that health insurance providers can't turn down applicants, and they have to charge everyone the same ammount for the same level coverage, regardless of any risk-factors. This wouldn't sink insurance companies, it would just raise insurance premiums and reduce the ammount of profit they could make.
What? We will still need to eat, right? Unless you intend to eat gasoline, I wouldn't recommend that.
I haven't seen the movie, so I don't know if this was the focal point or not. But if it was, then it would be fair to say that the movie is trying to draw parallels between scientists who subscribe to Darwinism and the Nazi officials who used Darwinism to justify ethnic cleansing. Of course, since we know that the Nazis were wrong, it may be an indication that the modern scientists who think along similar lines are also wrong. I really have to see the movie before I can say what is going on here. But you can't apply Goodwin's law to every use of the word Nazi, and it's important to realize that.
"Also, it's important to note that there is a huge difference between, "X was used to justify Y," and, "Y follows from X.""
But if X was used to justify Y, then it may mean that Y follows logically from X, no? That's usually how a justification works.
No, but it does give one pause. The fact that it was used to promote genocide makes me worry when I hear other people using it, especially in reference to government policy.
Even today it is easy to find people who hold the opinion that the state should regulate parenthood. They often site the need to promote the selection of "good" traits to counter the downfall of natural selection brought on by technology. In a very real way, these people are using Darwinian evolution to argue for establishment of a Nazi-like authoritarian government. So I think the connection is real, and important.
Of course, that doesn't make evolution wrong. It just means that you should be wary when you hear someone talking about it.
Godwins is not applicable in this context, because the movie's claim that the Nazis used Darwins theory to justify the extermination of the jews (and other parts of their ugenics program) is true. The theory of evolution was the "rational" and "scientific" basis of ugenics.
They believed that a utopian society could be created through the use of selective breeding to remove undesirable traits from the gene-pool.
Godwins applies when you make a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis, not when there is a direct connection. Otherwise, it would be practically impossible to debate facism, anti-semitism, or human experementation without violating Godwins.
I definately prefer widescreen. It just seems like I'm able to use all of the available space on a widescreen, while I can't on a standard one. That means that even though the screen is technically smaller, I can fit more stuff on it.
Seriously, the odds that any given asteroid will even impact a satellite on a particular pass are astronomical. Not anywhere near 1:450, so how could this possibly be true. I think that they may mean that *if* it impacts a satellite it will have a 1:450 chance of hitting us on it's next pass.
Just building 30 100mw plants will not give you a cost advantage. That would be like building 1000 1kw wind turbines and expecting it to cost the same as a 1mw wind turbine. That's why you build the bigger ones, lower installed cost, lower operating cost.
"You lost me on converting the $1 annual KWH running cost to the $10/watt installation cost."
$1/kwh/year = $1/(1000watt-hours per kwh/8760hours per year) = $1 / 0.11 watts therefore 1 watt of production capacity costs $8.76 (rounded to 10). The $1/kwh/year is from the wikipedia article on thermal solar power. It's probably the best number to use, since there isn't really enough data to establish a firm number.
As far as the cost of the iraq war, wikipedia says "Around $501 billion has been spent as of March 2008, based on current expenditure rates.[1]", so you're a little high.
I know it's not photovoltaic. That doesn't change the fact that it won't collect energy when there's no sunlight. That means you need to install more capacity to make up for the time when the sun isn't out.