Because it is. What they're doing is selling remote desktop as a service. Rather than your windows machine, they're offering a windows machine. It's not new, not as a technology, nor explicitly as a service.
Wow. So, in your pretend alternate reality world, the police never EVER abuse the laws we have today?
No one said that, you one dimensional moron. I'm tired of being polite about this line of thinking because it's so damned simplistic, that you should know better. The inverse of "All power will be abused at all times" is not "No power will be abused ever"
Hey, that's unfair. It could be that Microsoft has some new trend they're blindly jumping on without respect to how well its paradigms work on desktop computers.
Instead of "tablet with a mouse: the OS" we could get a version of windows explorer navigated by playing flappy bird.
And that attitude is exactly why we can safely take your opinion, and ignore it.
You seem to think cynicism is inherently reasonable and sane, and thus end up believe absurd bullshit in the name of pragmatism. You don't recognize that this isn't informed from any sort of careful study, but instead kind of boring extrapolation of the media notable times that the rule-of-law doesn't hold up.
You don't (mentally) live in a world where almost every single person accused of a crime in the US gets a trial. With a jury of their peers. And a chance to appeal if due process isn't followed. Your brain lives in an alternate reality, where all power is abused at all times, because that makes you smarter than everyone else. More clever, seeing the things that "those dullards" or whatever don't.
It is true that every power that's granted to government in a liberal democracy needs watchdogs, and alert citizenry. You seem to mistake that duty with an obligation to condemn socially useful features of government out of paranoid fear. What you're actually doing is creating a lot of white noise to distract from those who are doing their proper duty, looking out for real abuses. You aren't helping.
Oh no, they might killswitch a phone thought to be a bomb trigger.
I get the worry you've got: that "they" will use this language as a fiat tool to shut down whatever "they" want. Of course if "they" are really that arbitrary, what does the language in the law matter?
This is big pharma. There's a university-industrial complex out there, that researches then produces new treatments. This is step 1 of how those companies you hate make a new product.
Well, almost certainly in the test mice they debilitated the immune system so they could prove the theory.
You know how medical science is. All of these stages are repeated multiple times when relevant. First you prove basic mechanism in a pure environment. Then you prove it works in animal models. Then you prove it's reliably safe in animal models. Then you prove it doesn't immediately kill people in small controlled clinical trials, with high risk patients. Then you demonstrate that it's more effective than the current treatment under specific circumstances in double blind clinical trials. Congratulations, you're now a legitimate "experimental treatement".
The truth is, I don't know what's wrong with the deniers, and while I sort of adopt that narrative as an explanation, I don't really have any solid evidence that's actually how their brains are broken.
I like to ask as honestly as I can, and of course, that never gets an answer either. People just assume I'm trolling and move on.
How do you ask "What's wrong with you?" without coming across as actively hostile?
Point out literally any trivial mistake in any popular platform or game, and they(they being self-identified gamers) will inexplicably act as if you have invented the most vile insults about their parentage.
Honestly, my observation is that it's harder to not troll gamers than to do so.
Well, that and [insert terribly generic nerd joke here]
Some free nerd "jokes" if you can't come up with any *"It's hard to market from your moms basement" *"The overpowering body odor" *" 'Kill JarJar' isn't a big selling point"
No, you just imagine that. The evidence is just rather overwhelming that man's contribution to CO2 levels massively disproportionate, and overwhelming natural sinks.
Because the actual scientists involved have constantly been refining the theory and an entirely unreasonable amount of argument is dedicated to pretending that isn't happening.
It's just the people who are expecting a revolutionary reversal for no reason whatsoever never shut up about how we're not respecting the scientific method, I have a tendency to see that argument vis a vis climate change in a very harsh light.
Nobody in climatology has said earth will end up like Venus. Zip Zilch. You won't find a climatologist saying that. Anywhere. If you can take the bullshit liars have said about this debate out of your mental image of the debate, you might end up eventually realizing exactly how you got the the crazy spot you're in.
It's not that engineers are always falsely certain about scientific things, it's just that we're the ones who are most likely to think we're more qualified than we are with regards to science.
Setting: two people with their ankles handcuffed together
Says the left man: "We just don't know exactly how fast that car is going, your radar gun reading 67.432 MpH is based on sketchy theories I don't trust(and how did you get all those sigfigs?), and I'm guessing it's less than that, and think about how much effort it would take to move out of the way. Your 'get hit and die' theory is faulty, so we should clearly not move."
Says the right man: "aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah"
Our planet, has, in it's history, quite provably been over 10 C warmer, due to different carbon levels. That's huge, FYI. Earth has a proven history of going extremely warm(and no one is saying Venus is our future, thanks for the implied strawman there). That kind of change would murder our system of agriculture, almost everywhere.
And let's break from the summary and go to the article for an even more damning quote(emphasis mine):
Jens Greinert, who heads the deep-sea monitoring unit at GEOMAR, downplays the effect of the new seeps on the atmosphere or ocean chemistry because the magnitude of the releases is dwarfed by human-associated inputs, such as livestock, or even other marine sites. “These little bits of bubbling here or there will not make a memorable impact,” Greinert says. He is more interested in what will happen as the world warms. “It becomes interesting only if you have a catastrophic release,” he says.
Well, no, the earth does have negative feedback loops. We can see them in the historical records the deniers like to somewhat mindlessly cite for "natural cycles".
Depending on the scale of the runaway, those factors can just take thousands to millions of years to kick in.
Yes, dumbass. If I set your house on fire, and go "hey the wood's igniting the other wood, only the small pool of gasoline at the begining is my fault" it's still arson.
Slashdot Mirror
Because it is. What they're doing is selling remote desktop as a service. Rather than your windows machine, they're offering a windows machine. It's not new, not as a technology, nor explicitly as a service.
But sometimes all you want is useful.
Again, no one said that either. I can't even imagine what fictional me said to provoke such anger.
Yeah, see, you have no idea who "they" are. You still haven't identified anyone other than nebulous outsiders with your worst interests in mind.
You don't even know who you're afraid of.
Wow. So, in your pretend alternate reality world, the police never EVER abuse the laws we have today?
No one said that, you one dimensional moron. I'm tired of being polite about this line of thinking because it's so damned simplistic, that you should know better. The inverse of "All power will be abused at all times" is not "No power will be abused ever"
Did you choose to make that mistake? Why?
I knew it.
"A well publicized bad thing happened, therefor all government is evil." Magical thinking at its best.
"they".
Those bad people out to get you. You know.
Hey, that's unfair. It could be that Microsoft has some new trend they're blindly jumping on without respect to how well its paradigms work on desktop computers.
Instead of "tablet with a mouse: the OS" we could get a version of windows explorer navigated by playing flappy bird.
And that attitude is exactly why we can safely take your opinion, and ignore it.
You seem to think cynicism is inherently reasonable and sane, and thus end up believe absurd bullshit in the name of pragmatism. You don't recognize that this isn't informed from any sort of careful study, but instead kind of boring extrapolation of the media notable times that the rule-of-law doesn't hold up.
You don't (mentally) live in a world where almost every single person accused of a crime in the US gets a trial. With a jury of their peers. And a chance to appeal if due process isn't followed. Your brain lives in an alternate reality, where all power is abused at all times, because that makes you smarter than everyone else. More clever, seeing the things that "those dullards" or whatever don't.
It is true that every power that's granted to government in a liberal democracy needs watchdogs, and alert citizenry. You seem to mistake that duty with an obligation to condemn socially useful features of government out of paranoid fear. What you're actually doing is creating a lot of white noise to distract from those who are doing their proper duty, looking out for real abuses. You aren't helping.
Oh no, they might killswitch a phone thought to be a bomb trigger.
I get the worry you've got: that "they" will use this language as a fiat tool to shut down whatever "they" want. Of course if "they" are really that arbitrary, what does the language in the law matter?
This is big pharma. There's a university-industrial complex out there, that researches then produces new treatments. This is step 1 of how those companies you hate make a new product.
Well, almost certainly in the test mice they debilitated the immune system so they could prove the theory.
You know how medical science is. All of these stages are repeated multiple times when relevant.
First you prove basic mechanism in a pure environment.
Then you prove it works in animal models.
Then you prove it's reliably safe in animal models.
Then you prove it doesn't immediately kill people in small controlled clinical trials, with high risk patients.
Then you demonstrate that it's more effective than the current treatment under specific circumstances in double blind clinical trials.
Congratulations, you're now a legitimate "experimental treatement".
The truth is, I don't know what's wrong with the deniers, and while I sort of adopt that narrative as an explanation, I don't really have any solid evidence that's actually how their brains are broken.
I like to ask as honestly as I can, and of course, that never gets an answer either. People just assume I'm trolling and move on.
How do you ask "What's wrong with you?" without coming across as actively hostile?
Point out literally any trivial mistake in any popular platform or game, and they(they being self-identified gamers) will inexplicably act as if you have invented the most vile insults about their parentage.
Honestly, my observation is that it's harder to not troll gamers than to do so.
My opinion is that my opinion is false.
Well, that and [insert terribly generic nerd joke here]
Some free nerd "jokes" if you can't come up with any
*"It's hard to market from your moms basement"
*"The overpowering body odor"
*" 'Kill JarJar' isn't a big selling point"
No, you just imagine that. The evidence is just rather overwhelming that man's contribution to CO2 levels massively disproportionate, and overwhelming natural sinks.
Well, okay, I'll be less antagonistic about it.
Because the actual scientists involved have constantly been refining the theory and an entirely unreasonable amount of argument is dedicated to pretending that isn't happening.
It's just the people who are expecting a revolutionary reversal for no reason whatsoever never shut up about how we're not respecting the scientific method, I have a tendency to see that argument vis a vis climate change in a very harsh light.
Nobody in climatology has said earth will end up like Venus. Zip Zilch. You won't find a climatologist saying that. Anywhere. If you can take the bullshit liars have said about this debate out of your mental image of the debate, you might end up eventually realizing exactly how you got the the crazy spot you're in.
The salem hypothesis.
It's not that engineers are always falsely certain about scientific things, it's just that we're the ones who are most likely to think we're more qualified than we are with regards to science.
This stuff "just happens" over the course of literally millions of years(from your own links). Not a couple hundred.
Setting: two people with their ankles handcuffed together
Says the left man: "We just don't know exactly how fast that car is going, your radar gun reading 67.432 MpH is based on sketchy theories I don't trust(and how did you get all those sigfigs?), and I'm guessing it's less than that, and think about how much effort it would take to move out of the way. Your 'get hit and die' theory is faulty, so we should clearly not move."
Says the right man: "aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah"
Hey, look, HornWumpus, you don't know shit.
Our planet, has, in it's history, quite provably been over 10 C warmer, due to different carbon levels. That's huge, FYI. Earth has a proven history of going extremely warm(and no one is saying Venus is our future, thanks for the implied strawman there). That kind of change would murder our system of agriculture, almost everywhere.
And let's break from the summary and go to the article for an even more damning quote(emphasis mine):
Jens Greinert, who heads the deep-sea monitoring unit at GEOMAR, downplays the effect of the new seeps on the atmosphere or ocean chemistry because the magnitude of the releases is dwarfed by human-associated inputs, such as livestock, or even other marine sites. “These little bits of bubbling here or there will not make a memorable impact,” Greinert says. He is more interested in what will happen as the world warms. “It becomes interesting only if you have a catastrophic release,” he says.
Well, no, the earth does have negative feedback loops. We can see them in the historical records the deniers like to somewhat mindlessly cite for "natural cycles".
Depending on the scale of the runaway, those factors can just take thousands to millions of years to kick in.
Yes, dumbass. If I set your house on fire, and go "hey the wood's igniting the other wood, only the small pool of gasoline at the begining is my fault" it's still arson.