Pray tell why the " [sic] " follows "credibility"
in the article?
ref: ".. Allchin wrote to Ballmer. 'What a mess. Now we have an upset partner, Microsoft destroyed credibility [sic], as well as my own credibility shot.' "
I would hazard a guess that it would be more gramatically correct to have said "Microsoft's credibility destroyed"
I'd like to start by asking why every global warming proponent seems to treat anyone who doesn't immediately bow down to their group-think, like a holocaust denier?
Critical analysis is not treated with scorn. It's simply that most of the "critical analysis" of global warming circulating the web is uneducated dreck.
And there you go, proving my point for me.:-)
On the contrary, AGW is supported by both theory (spectral adsorption) and agreement with observations (global warming, stratospheric cooling, polar amplification, downward penetration of ocean heat, reduced diurnal temperature variation), etc.
I'll see your "uneducated drek" and raise you a pile of selective data harvesting. I'd also like to throw in "the little ice-age" and get your theory to explain that one.
By contrast, the leading alternate hypotheses (e.g., solar or volcanic variability, ocean heat upwelling,...) do not agree with observations (disagreement in timing, rate, and magnitude of warming, do not produce observed signatures such as stratospheric cooling, ocean warming, etc.)
I'll agree with your reasoning when you can demonstrate sufficient understanding of the Earths climate to predict what the weather will be like tomorrow.
So fine, tell me: what variables and unknowns are there which have uncertainties large enough to change the conclusion of global warming with a primarily anthropogenic cause? Please, be specific and quantitative.
Wait a minute. I'm not the one proposing a theory here. Can you first tell me what mechanisms are responsible for global warming ? We see an effect (warmer temperatures) and there is an apparent correlation between this and the industrial age. What is the causal link ? Correlation does not prove causality and I've yet to hear any theory that describes the mechanism by which man is supposed to be primarily responsible for this.
The people who say the most about global warming are those who support the theory? Shocking.
You've missed my point. The gp poster said that science had become democratized and that widely shouted beliefs were being touted as fact. I'm suggesting that (without arguing the merits of the theory) global warming is a poor counter example to this, as the widely shouted populist view is that global warming is a man made phenomenon.
Intelligent design is getting a lot of popular press but it doesn't make it a sound theory.
BTW: Once upon a time the majority of people claimed the earth was flat. They were by far the loudest voices screaming this theory. It didn't make them right.
Even more importantly, we've managed to "democratize" science. The "intelligent design", "vaccines and autism", and "global warming is a myth" campaigns are only the tip of the iceberg of targeted ignorance
I was with you right up until "global warming is a myth". If anything, I would have to say this is a counter example to your argument. Group-think is firmly on the side of global-warming as a fact and any alternative critical analysis of this position is treated with scorn.
The anthropomorphic global warming theory is not sound science. It's a good theory but it's far from proven. There are still too many variables and unknowns.
By far the loudest voices screaming about global warming are coming from the proponents of the theory. Whether that makes it scientific fact or not is dubious but either way it provides a counterpoint to your argument about democratizing science.
First you say "don't teach math" because most people never use it.
Now you turn around and say everyone should have 4 years of foreign language!!! WTF???
I know this is anglo-centric but why would I want to learn Spanish or Croatian, or Erdu ? The reality is I'm going to need them much less than higher maths in my day to day life.
You can't get enough competent maths teachers but language teachers are in plentiful supply and maths is "hard" so the students are struggling with it, therefore teaching foreign language is "better use of educational resources". Well no actually it's not. It's head-in-the-sand wooly liberal pandering and addresses only one section of the population who may have an aptitude for languages.
The argument against this approach is exactly the same as your argument against teaching maths. A compulsory four years of a foreign language is no different than 4 years of maths.
And for the record, it wasn't a personal attack. I said nothing about you personally. I said your comment was dumb. Perhaps your "type" didn't have the skills for reading comprehension when you were at school.
Oh yeah, "Mr Kettle, there's a Mr Pot on the phone for you."
For one thing the next NZ government is likely to be ready to do anything, anything, to appease the US government in order to get NZ back into ANZUS.
I don't think so. Maybe you've been out of the country for a while. NZ has a proud 20+ year history of thumbing their noses at the USA and even a change of government is unlikely to see nuclear (armed/powered) warships allowed in the ports. That alone pretty much puts an end to any re-entry into ANZUS.
So what you're saying is that because some people will never need maths we should stop teaching maths to ANYONE, or at least stop teaching anything other than elementary arithmetic.
Possibly one of the dumbest comments I've read so far today.
If kids don't want maths skills, don't waste the effort on teaching them but please keep the standards up for those who do.
At the risk of using a concept completely unfamiliar to you: Why do we always seem to want to cater for the lowest common denominator ?
Has it occurred to you that the problem might be with your delivery? I have to explain a "you're new around here" comment to you and think I'm the one with the problem ? N00b!
Well, seeing as you have achieved neither...:) I can already see the urine stain high on the wall above you.
Actually, that's not totally fair -- we frequently get quite a lot of people with large amounts of clue here. One example would be NewYorkCountryLawyer, but he's certainly not the only one. Whoosh!! There goes another one, completely over your head:-(
Me: 312 comments. You: 6 comments. GTFO. Dude!! Quantity over Quality ? Are you serious ?
I'm sure you can piss higher up the wall than me too!
Chill, N00bie.
Whoosh!! (the sound of the joke going right over your head)
Accusing someone posting to Slashdot of making sweeping generalisations without a clue seems somewhat redundant.
If you've been around here long enough, you should have spotted that recurring theme before. (Hint: In Soviet Russia, recurring themes spot you). Anyway your ID is greater than mine - N00b!:-)
You're clearly making huge hand-waving generalisations about something which you don't have the slightest clue about. As usual. You're new around here aren't you.
Jesus wept. Are you serious ? 50 times faster due to "caching" ??? Can I have some of what you're smoking please. Caching of what by whom ?
You're spouting complete bullshit. Replace "x" with "q", "y" with "p", "width" with "foo" and "height" with "bar" and look again. These things are just variables!! Width and height only have meaning to you, not the compiler. I pray that no-one takes your post seriously as you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. The compiler might produce faster code with "loop unrolling" enabled but that really depends on the values of foo and bar and what code is within the body of the loop.
Of course the compiler won't optimise the 1st snippet to make it look like the second. Shame on you for even considering that preposterous notion. Simply raising the issue deomnstrates a lack of understanding about the whole subject matter.
As for it being less clear...I despair. There aren't ANY comments and there's nothing to indicate what difference each loop index makes!!
I've had 15 years experience writing in C and you've had someone mod your post "insightful". Looks like more than the average quota of morons is moderating today.
"This means that someone else can take all your hard work -- which you intended to be for the benefit of everyone"
And here's your problem. You make the mistake of assuming that by licensing your code under a BSD license that you intended it to be for the benefit of everyone. Bzzzzzzt!! Maybe I simply don't mind what someone else does with my code. I'm no poorer for having done so.
"Too much freedom" !!!???!! Are you mad ??
Well I can see that you are at least rabid and paranoid. You extrapolate that simply because one person may use BSD licensed code to create a closed source binary this somehow overrides all other possible uses by everyone else.
Have you perhaps heard of the concept of "substantial non-infringing use". The idea that a device may have many uses, only some of which may be illegal, seems to have escaped you.
By your logic, all VCRs should be banned because someone might copy a video tape. Cars should be banned because someone might have an accident. If BSD licensed software can be used in a closed source environment, it too should be banned. You're off on another planet mate.
"What else does the BSD licence permit that the GPL does not? " The BSD license permits ultimate freedom for the author. They alone choose how they license their software and they are not arrogant enough to impose further restrictions on what another person might wish to do with it. It's all about choice. You seem to want to restrict my choice of license. Pull your head in.
You only have to check out GrokLaw to find out how much credibility should be given to anything Rob Enderle says. He's a shill.
"Snake oil. Get your snake oil here."
The calculations used on the web-site are just plain fiction. First they say a 16 liter engine would be too big to give 6000rpm and you could only get 2000rpm. So next you need a 48 liter V8.
OK, this would red-line at what...800rpm ? So then (using their maths) you would need an 120 liter engine for your 1000hp.
Ah but that would be even bigger and wouldn't rev faster than about 250rpm so you would need a 300 liter engine....and so on and so on
No wonder kids today don't "get" science if this is the sort of material being used for reference. Doh!
Slashdot Mirror
With an attitude like this, it's amazing to me that your ancestors ever decided to crawl out of the primordial slime.
Pray tell why the " [sic] " follows "credibility" in the article? ref: ".. Allchin wrote to Ballmer. 'What a mess. Now we have an upset partner, Microsoft destroyed credibility [sic], as well as my own credibility shot.' "
I would hazard a guess that it would be more gramatically correct to have said "Microsoft's credibility destroyed"
Critical analysis is not treated with scorn. It's simply that most of the "critical analysis" of global warming circulating the web is uneducated dreck.
And there you go, proving my point for me. :-)
On the contrary, AGW is supported by both theory (spectral adsorption) and agreement with observations (global warming, stratospheric cooling, polar amplification, downward penetration of ocean heat, reduced diurnal temperature variation), etc.
I'll see your "uneducated drek" and raise you a pile of selective data harvesting. I'd also like to throw in "the little ice-age" and get your theory to explain that one.
By contrast, the leading alternate hypotheses (e.g., solar or volcanic variability, ocean heat upwelling, ...) do not agree with observations (disagreement in timing, rate, and magnitude of warming, do not produce observed signatures such as stratospheric cooling, ocean warming, etc.)
I'll agree with your reasoning when you can demonstrate sufficient understanding of the Earths climate to predict what the weather will be like tomorrow.
So fine, tell me: what variables and unknowns are there which have uncertainties large enough to change the conclusion of global warming with a primarily anthropogenic cause? Please, be specific and quantitative.
Wait a minute. I'm not the one proposing a theory here. Can you first tell me what mechanisms are responsible for global warming ? We see an effect (warmer temperatures) and there is an apparent correlation between this and the industrial age. What is the causal link ? Correlation does not prove causality and I've yet to hear any theory that describes the mechanism by which man is supposed to be primarily responsible for this.
The people who say the most about global warming are those who support the theory? Shocking.
You've missed my point. The gp poster said that science had become democratized and that widely shouted beliefs were being touted as fact. I'm suggesting that (without arguing the merits of the theory) global warming is a poor counter example to this, as the widely shouted populist view is that global warming is a man made phenomenon.
Intelligent design is getting a lot of popular press but it doesn't make it a sound theory.
BTW: Once upon a time the majority of people claimed the earth was flat. They were by far the loudest voices screaming this theory. It didn't make them right.
Even more importantly, we've managed to "democratize" science. The "intelligent design", "vaccines and autism", and "global warming is a myth" campaigns are only the tip of the iceberg of targeted ignorance
I was with you right up until "global warming is a myth". If anything, I would have to say this is a counter example to your argument. Group-think is firmly on the side of global-warming as a fact and any alternative critical analysis of this position is treated with scorn.
The anthropomorphic global warming theory is not sound science. It's a good theory but it's far from proven. There are still too many variables and unknowns.
By far the loudest voices screaming about global warming are coming from the proponents of the theory. Whether that makes it scientific fact or not is dubious but either way it provides a counterpoint to your argument about democratizing science.
First you say "don't teach math" because most people never use it. Now you turn around and say everyone should have 4 years of foreign language!!! WTF???
I know this is anglo-centric but why would I want to learn Spanish or Croatian, or Erdu ? The reality is I'm going to need them much less than higher maths in my day to day life.
You can't get enough competent maths teachers but language teachers are in plentiful supply and maths is "hard" so the students are struggling with it, therefore teaching foreign language is "better use of educational resources". Well no actually it's not. It's head-in-the-sand wooly liberal pandering and addresses only one section of the population who may have an aptitude for languages.
The argument against this approach is exactly the same as your argument against teaching maths. A compulsory four years of a foreign language is no different than 4 years of maths.
And for the record, it wasn't a personal attack. I said nothing about you personally. I said your comment was dumb. Perhaps your "type" didn't have the skills for reading comprehension when you were at school.
Oh yeah, "Mr Kettle, there's a Mr Pot on the phone for you."
For one thing the next NZ government is likely to be ready to do anything, anything, to appease the US government in order to get NZ back into ANZUS.
I don't think so. Maybe you've been out of the country for a while. NZ has a proud 20+ year history of thumbing their noses at the USA and even a change of government is unlikely to see nuclear (armed/powered) warships allowed in the ports. That alone pretty much puts an end to any re-entry into ANZUS.
Otherwise I agree with (1) and (2)
So what you're saying is that because some people will never need maths we should stop teaching maths to ANYONE, or at least stop teaching anything other than elementary arithmetic.
Possibly one of the dumbest comments I've read so far today.
If kids don't want maths skills, don't waste the effort on teaching them but please keep the standards up for those who do.
At the risk of using a concept completely unfamiliar to you: Why do we always seem to want to cater for the lowest common denominator ?
I'm sure you can piss higher up the wall than me too!
Chill, N00bie.
Whoosh!! (the sound of the joke going right over your head)
:-)
Accusing someone posting to Slashdot of making sweeping generalisations without a clue seems somewhat redundant.
If you've been around here long enough, you should have spotted that recurring theme before. (Hint: In Soviet Russia, recurring themes spot you). Anyway your ID is greater than mine - N00b!
Jesus wept. Are you serious ? 50 times faster due to "caching" ??? Can I have some of what you're smoking please. Caching of what by whom ?
You're spouting complete bullshit. Replace "x" with "q", "y" with "p", "width" with "foo" and "height" with "bar" and look again. These things are just variables!! Width and height only have meaning to you, not the compiler. I pray that no-one takes your post seriously as you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. The compiler might produce faster code with "loop unrolling" enabled but that really depends on the values of foo and bar and what code is within the body of the loop.
Of course the compiler won't optimise the 1st snippet to make it look like the second. Shame on you for even considering that preposterous notion. Simply raising the issue deomnstrates a lack of understanding about the whole subject matter.
As for it being less clear...I despair. There aren't ANY comments and there's nothing to indicate what difference each loop index makes!!
I've had 15 years experience writing in C and you've had someone mod your post "insightful". Looks like more than the average quota of morons is moderating today.
"This means that someone else can take all your hard work -- which you intended to be for the benefit of everyone"
And here's your problem. You make the mistake of assuming that by licensing your code under a BSD license that you intended it to be for the benefit of everyone. Bzzzzzzt!! Maybe I simply don't mind what someone else does with my code. I'm no poorer for having done so.
"Too much freedom" !!!???!! Are you mad ??
Well I can see that you are at least rabid and paranoid. You extrapolate that simply because one person may use BSD licensed code to create a closed source binary this somehow overrides all other possible uses by everyone else.
Have you perhaps heard of the concept of "substantial non-infringing use". The idea that a device may have many uses, only some of which may be illegal, seems to have escaped you.
By your logic, all VCRs should be banned because someone might copy a video tape.
Cars should be banned because someone might have an accident.
If BSD licensed software can be used in a closed source environment, it too should be banned. You're off on another planet mate.
"What else does the BSD licence permit that the GPL does not? "
The BSD license permits ultimate freedom for the author. They alone choose how they license their software and they are not arrogant enough to impose further restrictions on what another person might wish to do with it. It's all about choice. You seem to want to restrict my choice of license. Pull your head in.
You only have to check out GrokLaw to find out how much credibility should be given to anything Rob Enderle says. He's a shill. "Snake oil. Get your snake oil here."
The calculations used on the web-site are just plain fiction. First they say a 16 liter engine would be too big to give 6000rpm and you could only get 2000rpm. So next you need a 48 liter V8.
OK, this would red-line at what...800rpm ? So then (using their maths) you would need an 120 liter engine for your 1000hp.
Ah but that would be even bigger and wouldn't rev faster than about 250rpm so you would need a 300 liter engine....and so on and so on
No wonder kids today don't "get" science if this is the sort of material being used for reference. Doh!