Huh. My first computer was a recycled Apple III and I had a lot of fun with it. Never overheated once, although it wasn't until after several years I got curious and popped off the case, and discovered a second memory module which had been rattling around loose all the time I had owned it. And nothing says technology like a 5MB hard drive.
I believe one of Apple's biggest failures was dumping that Apple line. They never made the Apple IV and moved the resources into the Mac. Granted, the Mac was good, but I still liked the "openness" of the Apple I's, II's and III's. You could open the case and put whatever you wanted into them. They were very powerful machines for their day and could have been a worthy competitor to all the "IBM clones" that came out shortly afterward.
Unfortunately, they dumped it to keep it from competing with the new Lisa and Mac machines (competing on the market as well as competing for internal investment dollars). BTW, the Lisa didn't make the list for some reason. I think Apple could have filled two niches here. The Apple IV's could have been the enthusiast/server machine with the Macs acting as the end user stations both for home use and workstations in businesses. The Apple IV line would have been cheap, open, and scalable whereas the Mac line would have be the usual Mac-in-the-Box machines that were "what-you-buy-is-what-you-get" computers that they are today.
I wrote a program last week to model the energy output of two colliding celestial bodies. I decided to take the average estimated mass for each by pulling some data sets from my fellow scientists. I called up my buddy to tell him how cool it was to see just how much energy could be release upon such a collision. He told me: "Yeah, you'll have to show me that--wait, you didn't use that mass table I sent you, did you? Turns out my equipment was miscalibrated." Oh, no problem, I thought. I'll just recompute the averages after I toss out his faul--OH HOLIEST OF FUCKS I'VE JUST COMMITTED THE WORST SIN KNOW TO MAN. I CHANGED MY INPUT DATA WHICH IS SACROSANCT AND NEVER WRONG. DATA IS DATA. DATA IS PERFECT. IT IS FIXED.
Seriously, if your apparent understanding of science is "either all the models give the same result from the same data or they are wrong," why even bother posting about it? You're simply ignorant. "End of story."
Talk about missing the point. I never said data could not be changed due to errors. I said, "Changing the data to match your preconceived result invalidates the model."
In other words, to use your example, you completed your model, looked at the results and said, "Hmmm. That's not right." So you change the mass and/or speed of the objects to have the model's results match what you thought the output should be.
You should really work on your literacy skills before you run around calling other people ignorant.
I'm curious, which of the references above are from scientists?
Well, let's see. The first two deal with the IPCC and the third deals with politicians. Hmmmm. Looks like you right. There are no scientists there.
It's a shame that these are the people will make the policies that will shape our lives. These are also the same people who pay for the science and decide what science gets done. Hmmmm. Let's see. People who love power are paying for science that gives them more power. What could possibly go wrong? And people will gladly hand over your rights to them for the "security" they do not deserve (according to B. Franklin).
Scientists need to realize that if they're going to get public support, they really need to be very careful with their choice of wording. Like it or not, the scare mongers, and I mean scare mongers in the sense that there are people who are trying to scare folks into believing that Global Warming is some sort of wealth redistribution scheme by the socialists, are going to use any hint, real or not, that scientists are making up their findings.
Scare mongers? Let's take a look at some of these "hints" that scientists are making up their findings. From May 7, 2002
Dozens of mountain lakes in Nepal and Bhutan are so swollen from melting glaciers that they could burst their seams in the next five years and devastate many Himalayan villages, warns a new report from the United Nations.
In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report.
It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.
Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research.
Do I need to pull the quotes that claim NY and Florida will be underwater?
As for the "fear mongers" saying that GW is a socialist wealth redistribution scheme.
Some officials from the United States, Britain and Japan say foreign-aid spending can be directed at easing the risks from climate change. The United States, for example, has promoted its three-year-old Millennium Challenge Corporation as a source of financing for projects in poor countries that will foster resilience. It has just begun to consider environmental benefits of projects, officials say.
Industrialized countries bound by the Kyoto Protocol, the climate pact rejected by the Bush administration, project that hundreds of millions of dollars will soon flow via that treaty into a climate adaptation fund.
Strange. When did Rush and Hannity start writing for the NY Times?
so science becomes an act of creativity by which one tries to create a cohesive narrative of process that arrives at the desired result.
And that is the problem. When the input is fixed, experiments are to determine a reaction when those variables are present, not to achieve a "desired result". Scientists should not "desire" any particular result when the inputs are unchangeable. They can predict the outcome, but they can not change the DATA to receive a desired result. For example, when determining the energy output of two colliding celestial bodies, scientists can not change the mass and velocity of those bodies. All they can do is input the data available. Changing that data changes can the predicted result, but will not actually change the mass, the velocity or angular momentum of the bodies therefor will not change the true energy output from the impending collision. The same rules apply when dealing with climate science. The data is the data. It is fixed.
Changing the data to match your preconceived result invalidates the model, even when your predictions are based on other models. Either all the models give the same result from the same data or they are wrong. End of story.
And your sig:
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Says the guy using the Internet (an American creation), via a computer (an American product), to post "STOP . AMERICA . NOW" on a website run and owned, operated and run out of AMERICA.
Let's see... not enough money? What is there to be done? You either CUT spending or your RAISE taxes. THAT is fiscal conservatism.
Close. Fiscal Conservatism cuts spending AND taxes. Depending on which side of the Laffer curve you are on, cutting taxes actually RAISES revenue. This happened after GWB's tax cuts took effect. Bush cut taxes. Government took in record receipts (and then spent them!).
Also, don't attempt to insult me just because you can't refute what you think is an argument.
Your "argument" is perfectly refutable. Do you really think that Woz contacted the receptionist at Toyota, rather than a technical support line?
Furthermore, I'll insult you just because you are such a douchebag. The irony of you talking about respect for fellow human beings is hilarious. Did you even read your own post about Wozniak?
Dumbass! The point is that I wasn't arguing. But, I'll take your points on.
My point was that he should have taken the car to the place where he purchased it. You know, the place with the balloons, hot dogs, sales people and a SERVICE CENTER under the big sign that says, "TOYOTA". Nope. He had to try to contact Toyota directly. Here's a little secret, car companies don't deal with customers, dealerships do. That's why they have dealerships. I've owned three Toyotas, one Ford, a Jeep and an Isuzu. Never, in my life, have I, or anyone else I have ever known, had to take their problem to the car company itself. I lived in Michigan for years and knew many people who worked for GM, Ford and Chrysler, and even THEY had to take their cars to the dealership to get serviced. Hell, people that worked the line all day putting these cars together had to leave the parking lot full of new Grand Am's and go to dealership to buy one.
Woz is different. He called Toyota and the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration. Why couldn't he take his car back to the dealer like every other American, INCLUDING CAR COMPANY EMPLOYEES!??!
So, there's your argument. However, I have no idea why you would want to argue over something that is printed in Woz's own quote. I said that Woz tried to contact Toyota directly when he should have called his dealership. I then made a little story/joke about what could happen when you try to contact an administrative desk at a car company over a maintenance/mechanic issue and for some reason, you wanted to make an argument out of it. I don't know if it's because you just quit smoking or just got mugged or if you just some kind of uber-troll, but you're really just making an ass of yourself.
Well, if that's what you meant, you're fucking retarded, as the article doesn't say that Steve Wozniak called Toyota's reception desk.
From TFA:
"I don't get upset and teed off at things in life, except computers that don't work right," was his segue into the Toyota comments. Then he said he had been trying to get through to Toyota and the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) for three months but could not get anyone to explore an alleged software-related acceleration problem--as described below.
So, instead of taking his car to the dealer, he tries to reach Toyota, the company and the NHTSA when his car probably just needs to get serviced.
Also, don't attempt to insult me just because you can't refute what you think is an argument. Next, if you must lower yourself to a level just below asshole, please do not use the handicapped as an insult. It insults you much more than you are trying to insult me and shows that you lack class and respect for fellow human beings.
Corporate is much more likely to listen to their certified mechanics than it is to a retired software mogul.
I doubt that very much. This is a safety/political issue. Toyota wants to avoid it at all costs.
No, what I meant was this:
Receptionist: Toyota corporate offices, this is Janice. Woz: Hi. Uh, This is "The Woz" and my cruize control is screwed up and my car wasn't recalled. Can I talk to the CEO or someone in software development? Receptionist: Sure. Hold please. (click... buzzzzzzzzz)
If Toyota hasn't admitted anything, the dealership will tell him to fuck off, or write a check for the technician time to look at it.
Dealerships usually don't stay in business long after telling customers to "fuck off". Last time I had a problem with a Toyota, it was under warranty so I took it to the dealer. When I had a hard time describing the problem, the mechanic hopped in the car with me and we went for a drive. When I hit 45 or so, it started making the sound I described and he said, "hmmm. Sounds like bearings." and got the problem fixed. Of course, this was a long time ago (it's been a while since I've had a care under warranty), but even when I take my car into a non-dealership mechanic, I have no problems getting a mechanic to either go for a ride to see the problem or take the care out themselves if the problem is only noticed from the driver's seat.
And, if it's a problem with the software, it will be a problem on all cars that use that software. The dealer will not be able to fix the problem without a rewrite from corporate. In other words, Corporate is much more likely to listen to their certified mechanics than it is to a retired software mogul.
Why doesn't he just take the car to the dealership? He could be making a bigger deal out of this than is necessary.
It seems to be a bad habit people in high places have of trying to only deal with others in high places. His cruise control may have a problem. That doesn't mean he needs to call the CEO of Toyota directly to get the problem resolved. His dealer should be able to take care of it.
I stopped thinking you had any sense when you said CO2 isn't a pollutant. You must not understand the term pollutant, or you must not understand the chemical properties of CO2, or you must not understand ecology, or all of the above.
Every time you exhale, are you "polluting"? How can the byproduct from a 100% natural reaction be considered a pollutant? Sorry, but it was legally classified as a pollutant by the EPA for no other purpose than to grab power. Mercury is a pollutant. Sulfur Dioxide is a pollutant. CO2 is release by all living animals with every breath. Hell, even plants release CO2 from time to time. It is not a pollutant.
If you are considering the greenhouse warming properties of CO2, then why isn't water vapor considered a pollutant? It is a much more of a greenhouse gas that CO2 and there is much more of it in the atmosphere. If it makes you feel better, those evil, greedy power plants expel it all the time. So tell me, why hasn't the EPA declared water a pollutant? Shouldn't the oceans be considered hazardous cleanup zones? Shouldn't we be having a "war against clouds"?
The reason Chris Dodd or Barney Frank make laws that affect your life is because you live in a country which has a Congress, Judicial, and Executive Branch. Texas doesn't go to war with Iraq does it? Damn those other states for voting to goto War to 'protect' me or my property.
Military is a federal job. That's in the Constitution. The President has the Constitutional authority over the armed forces and Congress has the Constitutional authority to wage war. Can you tell me where it says that Congress can take my Texas money and give it to corn farmers in Iowa in exchange for NOT growing corn? Can you tell me what gives congress the authority to take millions in tax payer dollars from 50 states and spend it on grape seed genetics research centers in two states? It's not in there. There are some powers the Constitution gives to the federal government. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. (10th Amendment) That means that whatever powers the Constitution does not give to the feds, is the State's responsibility, or the people's, provided they do not do something forbidden by the Constitution (like blocking free speech).
Arguably, investing in clean energy technology IS protecting you and your property, because without our dependency on foreign oil and the social ramifications our greed inflicts on those cultures we have no right dictating, we arguably wouldn't have such backlash.
Who is saying that "unclean" energy is a threat to my property? How about I take your tax dollars to protect your property from interdimensional space worms from underground? That should be fair, right? I mean, as long as the government determines that interdimensional space worms from underground are a threat to your property, well they should be able to take whatever they want to protect you from those evil interdimensional space worms from underground. Have you been attacked by interdimensional space worms from underground? No? That's because our efforts are working. (And don't give me that, "but man made global warming is real crap either. If it were, scientists would not be hiding and faking data and trying suppress pier review) As to your idea that "our greed inflicts on those cultures we have no right dictating", you mean like giving women the right to read, vote, and go to school? Sorry, but they are called "human rights", not our culture rights. Or do you not think that brown people and women deserve basic human rights?
Pollution isn't really a "private affair" any more than wandering around and punching people in the face is a "private exercise routine".
First, CO2 is not a pollutant. It has been labeled as such so the EPA can use it grab power and limit the lives of Americans without the approval of congress.
Next, if a company is polluting (with real pollutants) don't buy their stuff. Do what you can to get the word out so others won't buy their stuff. If their pollutants cause you damage, either personal or financial, take them to civil court. Why do you need the federal government to pass laws that intrude into the lives of every American?
And, yes, the "state" should protect your and your property. Fortunately, most of this can be done by your local and state governments. The feds don't need to get involved until the infraction crosses state lines.
I'm not against state powers (state, meaning Michigan, Maine, Arkansas, NY and so on). The people of each state can decide how much power their state government has. Don't like the control that the CA government has over your life? Move to GA. Don't like the BS tax laws in Oregon? Move the Florida. Or, rather than moving, you can vote the bastards out! But, as a Texan, I have no way of legally voting out Chris Dodd or Barney Frank from office. Why are they making laws that will affect my life? Why can't my local governments do that?
I find this incredibly sad. Aren't there any better, new ideas in fusion research to invest money and time into for experimental purposes?
I've always wondered why they can't just use a supercolider or atom smasher to bang two hydrogen atoms together with enough force to fuse them into helium. Do this with a stream of hydrogen atoms in both directions and you have sustained fusion.
Also, income redistributes itself naturally. Rich people spend money to get goods and services. These goods and services are almost always provided by people who are not rich. Rich people also invest money so they can stay rich. This means that jobs are opened up and filled by people who are usually not as rich as the owner of the company.
In theory. In practice however, we get to the current situation.
Do you have a job? Is your employer "rich"? I do, and yes he (or the board anyway) is. Our customers are banks. They are run by rich people and rich boards and they also employ bunches of people and make it possible for me to have a job at the same time.
That 'income redistribution' as you call it has a much more common name. It's called 'Taxes', and it pays for everything your country does. The country has been collecting taxes for over a century. Obama did it, Junior did it, Clinton did it, etc, etc, ad-nauseum. The simple fact is, that right now, the rich hold almost all of the wealth in the country. It's now at levels not seen since the last great depression oddly enough. It's time for a little balance, or the middle class will simply cease to exist. Did you ever stop to consider that applying more taxes to the rich at this time is actually returning the US to a much more healthy balance?
Can you show me where in the Constitution it says that the government's job is to provide a balance of wealth for the people? I can't seem to find it in there anywhere.
Also, income redistributes itself naturally. Rich people spend money to get goods and services. These goods and services are almost always provided by people who are not rich. Rich people also invest money so they can stay rich. This means that jobs are opened up and filled by people who are usually not as rich as the owner of the company.
Cap and Trade - Pragmatic, market-based solution to a serious problem, a solution that Libertarians loved until a Democratic president proposed it. Centrist.
Universal Health Care - The standard for Western industrial nationals, and supported in some form by 60-80% of the US population. Centrist.
Income Redistribution - A loaded term for making the wealthy pay their fair share for the national infrastructure that as capital owners they get far more use from. Centrist (the rightist Republican version of course is Income Redistribution from the poor and middle classes to the rich).
Canceling NASA projects - eliminating wasteful spending. Centrist.
Studying global warming - Necessary science to resolve a looming crisis. Non-political.
So yeah, fairly centrist so far.
I don't think you know what Libertarian means. Let me tell what THIS Libertarian believes.
Cap and Trade- Government needs to stay out of the private affairs of the people and the businesses they run.
Universal Health Care- The federal government should never pay for what the states can do for themselves. States can do Universal Health Care if they decide to... or not. Either way, government needs to stay out of the private affairs of the people and the businesses they run.
Income Redistribution- The government has no business telling the people what do with their money. Government needs to stay out of the private affairs of the people and the businesses they run.
Canceling NASA projects- Currently, NASA serves a role in national security. Also, it is a job that neither the states nor private industries can do. NASA is a government role. I'd hardly call it wasteful either. Ever watch TV, use a navigation device, make a phone call overseas use a non-stick skillet? All NASA's doing.
Studying global warming- Wait! I thought the debate was over and the science was settled. What's there to study? Sorry, but AGW theories have proven to be full of fraud, outright lies and power grabs. While I agree that research needs to be done, cutting NASA's budget is not the way to go about it. There is so much more to our climate than what we see here on Earth.
So, no not a centrist.
As to being a Libertarian, let me sum it up this way: The federal government should only what only the federal government can do! This means that anything the states can do, the federal government should say out of. Anything that is not nationally security related or deals with interstate commerce, the feds should stay out of it. If it ain't specifically spelled out in the Constitution as a job the feds should be doing, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD STAY OUT OF IT!!!
I'm used to it by now. The Obama administration has, thus far, (when one counts actual policy actions, rather than words) been pretty much a long sequence of Obama doing something that is centrist-democrat at best, "Bush III, but literate" at worst then being howled at by republicans(many of whom supported virtually identical policies in the recent past) because anything a communist-fascist-muslim-sleeper-terrorist from kenya does simply must be evil.
Obama? A centrist? Bush III? I think your ideas of what defines a "centrist" are off. Cap and Trade, Universal Health Care, Income Redistribution, cancelling the moon and Orion missions and repurposing NASA to study global warming... hardly what I'd call centrist. Boy, I'd hate to see what you call a lefty.
Bullshit. How many iPhone clones have hit the market in the last 2 years? The hardware is virtually identical.
It's not about the hardware, it's about the software. And if you want the software, you've got to drink the Kool-aid, because as soon as you start screwing with the software, it just doesn't work as well.
The GP said, "Why not create your own open source tablet to compete, and let the marketplace decide?"
My response was that I couldn't (that's an italic I, not a slash). For that matter I don't think any startup could without some serious financial and legal backing. But, you are correct about the clones. I would not be surprised to see companies like Google coming out with a clonePad in the near future running Android/Google Apps. And again, it all comes down to who has the big bucks and enormous legal team.
You're absolutely right. It's such a shame that no one has yet determined a way to break the locks that bind the iPhone and the iPod Touch to the App Store. You could even say these devices are imprisoned, jailed. If only some intrepid group of hackers could find a way to break these devices out of jail, allowing those that wish it a way to modify their devices or install "unauthorized" applications onto them. If only there were some way to get the word out, and allow those that wish to make use of this mythical hack to find it. Perhaps some day such technology will exist.
Phhhht! It will rain black before that ever happens!
If you want open and free, go somewhere else and take your chances
Where? The only company I could see releasing a copy of this thing without getting sued into oblivion is Google and it's Android OS and I've heard no plans of a Google tablet (gPad?). MS could fight off the lawsuits, but their UI would suck and probably be just as locked down.
Attacking Apple's products is one thing. Why not create your own open source tablet to compete, and let the marketplace decide?
Because you can't. See, the problem is not the lockdown. I'd be OK with that as some people need to be locked down, and they know it. These are the same people who will purchase this product. That's what choice is all about.
Except,there really is no choice. If I were to "design" (copy) the iPad with all the neat little features the iPad has (multitouch, the way you slide objects and pages around etc.) and release it with a fully open OS with no restrictions on how it is used or what it runs, I wouldn't get my first one out the door before a horde of Apple lawyers break down my door with a flurry of patent infringement lawsuits. Even if I could beat some or all of them, the court costs and the years waiting for a resolution would bankrupt me.
Slashdot Mirror
Huh. My first computer was a recycled Apple III and I had a lot of fun with it. Never overheated once, although it wasn't until after several years I got curious and popped off the case, and discovered a second memory module which had been rattling around loose all the time I had owned it. And nothing says technology like a 5MB hard drive.
I believe one of Apple's biggest failures was dumping that Apple line. They never made the Apple IV and moved the resources into the Mac. Granted, the Mac was good, but I still liked the "openness" of the Apple I's, II's and III's. You could open the case and put whatever you wanted into them. They were very powerful machines for their day and could have been a worthy competitor to all the "IBM clones" that came out shortly afterward.
Unfortunately, they dumped it to keep it from competing with the new Lisa and Mac machines (competing on the market as well as competing for internal investment dollars). BTW, the Lisa didn't make the list for some reason. I think Apple could have filled two niches here. The Apple IV's could have been the enthusiast/server machine with the Macs acting as the end user stations both for home use and workstations in businesses. The Apple IV line would have been cheap, open, and scalable whereas the Mac line would have be the usual Mac-in-the-Box machines that were "what-you-buy-is-what-you-get" computers that they are today.
I wrote a program last week to model the energy output of two colliding celestial bodies. I decided to take the average estimated mass for each by pulling some data sets from my fellow scientists. I called up my buddy to tell him how cool it was to see just how much energy could be release upon such a collision. He told me: "Yeah, you'll have to show me that--wait, you didn't use that mass table I sent you, did you? Turns out my equipment was miscalibrated." Oh, no problem, I thought. I'll just recompute the averages after I toss out his faul--OH HOLIEST OF FUCKS I'VE JUST COMMITTED THE WORST SIN KNOW TO MAN. I CHANGED MY INPUT DATA WHICH IS SACROSANCT AND NEVER WRONG. DATA IS DATA. DATA IS PERFECT. IT IS FIXED.
Seriously, if your apparent understanding of science is "either all the models give the same result from the same data or they are wrong," why even bother posting about it? You're simply ignorant. "End of story."
Talk about missing the point. I never said data could not be changed due to errors. I said, "Changing the data to match your preconceived result invalidates the model."
In other words, to use your example, you completed your model, looked at the results and said, "Hmmm. That's not right." So you change the mass and/or speed of the objects to have the model's results match what you thought the output should be.
You should really work on your literacy skills before you run around calling other people ignorant.
I'm curious, which of the references above are from scientists?
Well, let's see. The first two deal with the IPCC and the third deals with politicians. Hmmmm. Looks like you right. There are no scientists there.
It's a shame that these are the people will make the policies that will shape our lives. These are also the same people who pay for the science and decide what science gets done. Hmmmm. Let's see. People who love power are paying for science that gives them more power. What could possibly go wrong? And people will gladly hand over your rights to them for the "security" they do not deserve (according to B. Franklin).
Scientists need to realize that if they're going to get public support, they really need to be very careful with their choice of wording. Like it or not, the scare mongers, and I mean scare mongers in the sense that there are people who are trying to scare folks into believing that Global Warming is some sort of wealth redistribution scheme by the socialists, are going to use any hint, real or not, that scientists are making up their findings.
Scare mongers? Let's take a look at some of these "hints" that scientists are making up their findings. From May 7, 2002
Dozens of mountain lakes in Nepal and Bhutan are so swollen from melting glaciers that they could burst their seams in the next five years and devastate many Himalayan villages, warns a new report from the United Nations.
From January 17, 2010:
In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report.
It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.
Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research.
Do I need to pull the quotes that claim NY and Florida will be underwater?
As for the "fear mongers" saying that GW is a socialist wealth redistribution scheme.
Some officials from the United States, Britain and Japan say foreign-aid spending can be directed at easing the risks from climate change. The United States, for example, has promoted its three-year-old Millennium Challenge Corporation as a source of financing for projects in poor countries that will foster resilience. It has just begun to consider environmental benefits of projects, officials say.
Industrialized countries bound by the Kyoto Protocol, the climate pact rejected by the Bush administration, project that hundreds of millions of dollars will soon flow via that treaty into a climate adaptation fund.
Strange. When did Rush and Hannity start writing for the NY Times?
so science becomes an act of creativity by which one tries to create a cohesive narrative of process that arrives at the desired result.
And that is the problem. When the input is fixed, experiments are to determine a reaction when those variables are present, not to achieve a "desired result". Scientists should not "desire" any particular result when the inputs are unchangeable. They can predict the outcome, but they can not change the DATA to receive a desired result. For example, when determining the energy output of two colliding celestial bodies, scientists can not change the mass and velocity of those bodies. All they can do is input the data available. Changing that data changes can the predicted result, but will not actually change the mass, the velocity or angular momentum of the bodies therefor will not change the true energy output from the impending collision. The same rules apply when dealing with climate science. The data is the data. It is fixed.
Changing the data to match your preconceived result invalidates the model, even when your predictions are based on other models. Either all the models give the same result from the same data or they are wrong. End of story.
And your sig:
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Says the guy using the Internet (an American creation), via a computer (an American product), to post "STOP . AMERICA . NOW" on a website run and owned, operated and run out of AMERICA.
Kind of hypocritical, don't ya think?
Let's see... not enough money? What is there to be done? You either CUT spending or your RAISE taxes. THAT is fiscal conservatism.
Close. Fiscal Conservatism cuts spending AND taxes. Depending on which side of the Laffer curve you are on, cutting taxes actually RAISES revenue. This happened after GWB's tax cuts took effect. Bush cut taxes. Government took in record receipts (and then spent them!).
Also, don't attempt to insult me just because you can't refute what you think is an argument.
Your "argument" is perfectly refutable. Do you really think that Woz contacted the receptionist at Toyota, rather than a technical support line?
Furthermore, I'll insult you just because you are such a douchebag. The irony of you talking about respect for fellow human beings is hilarious. Did you even read your own post about Wozniak?
Dumbass! The point is that I wasn't arguing. But, I'll take your points on.
My point was that he should have taken the car to the place where he purchased it. You know, the place with the balloons, hot dogs, sales people and a SERVICE CENTER under the big sign that says, "TOYOTA". Nope. He had to try to contact Toyota directly. Here's a little secret, car companies don't deal with customers, dealerships do. That's why they have dealerships. I've owned three Toyotas, one Ford, a Jeep and an Isuzu. Never, in my life, have I, or anyone else I have ever known, had to take their problem to the car company itself. I lived in Michigan for years and knew many people who worked for GM, Ford and Chrysler, and even THEY had to take their cars to the dealership to get serviced. Hell, people that worked the line all day putting these cars together had to leave the parking lot full of new Grand Am's and go to dealership to buy one.
Woz is different. He called Toyota and the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration. Why couldn't he take his car back to the dealer like every other American, INCLUDING CAR COMPANY EMPLOYEES!??!
So, there's your argument. However, I have no idea why you would want to argue over something that is printed in Woz's own quote. I said that Woz tried to contact Toyota directly when he should have called his dealership. I then made a little story/joke about what could happen when you try to contact an administrative desk at a car company over a maintenance/mechanic issue and for some reason, you wanted to make an argument out of it. I don't know if it's because you just quit smoking or just got mugged or if you just some kind of uber-troll, but you're really just making an ass of yourself.
Have a good day
Well, if that's what you meant, you're fucking retarded, as the article doesn't say that Steve Wozniak called Toyota's reception desk.
From TFA:
"I don't get upset and teed off at things in life, except computers that don't work right," was his segue into the Toyota comments. Then he said he had been trying to get through to Toyota and the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) for three months but could not get anyone to explore an alleged software-related acceleration problem--as described below.
So, instead of taking his car to the dealer, he tries to reach Toyota, the company and the NHTSA when his car probably just needs to get serviced.
Also, don't attempt to insult me just because you can't refute what you think is an argument. Next, if you must lower yourself to a level just below asshole, please do not use the handicapped as an insult. It insults you much more than you are trying to insult me and shows that you lack class and respect for fellow human beings.
Corporate is much more likely to listen to their certified mechanics than it is to a retired software mogul.
I doubt that very much. This is a safety/political issue. Toyota wants to avoid it at all costs.
No, what I meant was this:
Receptionist: Toyota corporate offices, this is Janice.
Woz: Hi. Uh, This is "The Woz" and my cruize control is screwed up and my car wasn't recalled. Can I talk to the CEO or someone in software development?
Receptionist: Sure. Hold please. (click... buzzzzzzzzz)
If Toyota hasn't admitted anything, the dealership will tell him to fuck off, or write a check for the technician time to look at it.
Dealerships usually don't stay in business long after telling customers to "fuck off". Last time I had a problem with a Toyota, it was under warranty so I took it to the dealer. When I had a hard time describing the problem, the mechanic hopped in the car with me and we went for a drive. When I hit 45 or so, it started making the sound I described and he said, "hmmm. Sounds like bearings." and got the problem fixed. Of course, this was a long time ago (it's been a while since I've had a care under warranty), but even when I take my car into a non-dealership mechanic, I have no problems getting a mechanic to either go for a ride to see the problem or take the care out themselves if the problem is only noticed from the driver's seat.
And, if it's a problem with the software, it will be a problem on all cars that use that software. The dealer will not be able to fix the problem without a rewrite from corporate. In other words, Corporate is much more likely to listen to their certified mechanics than it is to a retired software mogul.
Why doesn't he just take the car to the dealership? He could be making a bigger deal out of this than is necessary.
It seems to be a bad habit people in high places have of trying to only deal with others in high places. His cruise control may have a problem. That doesn't mean he needs to call the CEO of Toyota directly to get the problem resolved. His dealer should be able to take care of it.
Who still uses X band? Ka band and Laser are used more.
The "X" makes it sound cool.
I stopped thinking you had any sense when you said CO2 isn't a pollutant. You must not understand the term pollutant, or you must not understand the chemical properties of CO2, or you must not understand ecology, or all of the above.
Every time you exhale, are you "polluting"? How can the byproduct from a 100% natural reaction be considered a pollutant? Sorry, but it was legally classified as a pollutant by the EPA for no other purpose than to grab power. Mercury is a pollutant. Sulfur Dioxide is a pollutant. CO2 is release by all living animals with every breath. Hell, even plants release CO2 from time to time. It is not a pollutant.
If you are considering the greenhouse warming properties of CO2, then why isn't water vapor considered a pollutant? It is a much more of a greenhouse gas that CO2 and there is much more of it in the atmosphere. If it makes you feel better, those evil, greedy power plants expel it all the time. So tell me, why hasn't the EPA declared water a pollutant? Shouldn't the oceans be considered hazardous cleanup zones? Shouldn't we be having a "war against clouds"?
The reason Chris Dodd or Barney Frank make laws that affect your life is because you live in a country which has a Congress, Judicial, and Executive Branch. Texas doesn't go to war with Iraq does it? Damn those other states for voting to goto War to 'protect' me or my property.
Military is a federal job. That's in the Constitution. The President has the Constitutional authority over the armed forces and Congress has the Constitutional authority to wage war. Can you tell me where it says that Congress can take my Texas money and give it to corn farmers in Iowa in exchange for NOT growing corn? Can you tell me what gives congress the authority to take millions in tax payer dollars from 50 states and spend it on grape seed genetics research centers in two states? It's not in there. There are some powers the Constitution gives to the federal government. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. (10th Amendment) That means that whatever powers the Constitution does not give to the feds, is the State's responsibility, or the people's, provided they do not do something forbidden by the Constitution (like blocking free speech).
Arguably, investing in clean energy technology IS protecting you and your property, because without our dependency on foreign oil and the social ramifications our greed inflicts on those cultures we have no right dictating, we arguably wouldn't have such backlash.
Who is saying that "unclean" energy is a threat to my property? How about I take your tax dollars to protect your property from interdimensional space worms from underground? That should be fair, right? I mean, as long as the government determines that interdimensional space worms from underground are a threat to your property, well they should be able to take whatever they want to protect you from those evil interdimensional space worms from underground. Have you been attacked by interdimensional space worms from underground? No? That's because our efforts are working. (And don't give me that, "but man made global warming is real crap either. If it were, scientists would not be hiding and faking data and trying suppress pier review)
As to your idea that "our greed inflicts on those cultures we have no right dictating", you mean like giving women the right to read, vote, and go to school? Sorry, but they are called "human rights", not our culture rights. Or do you not think that brown people and women deserve basic human rights?
Pollution isn't really a "private affair" any more than wandering around and punching people in the face is a "private exercise routine".
First, CO2 is not a pollutant. It has been labeled as such so the EPA can use it grab power and limit the lives of Americans without the approval of congress.
Next, if a company is polluting (with real pollutants) don't buy their stuff. Do what you can to get the word out so others won't buy their stuff. If their pollutants cause you damage, either personal or financial, take them to civil court. Why do you need the federal government to pass laws that intrude into the lives of every American?
And, yes, the "state" should protect your and your property. Fortunately, most of this can be done by your local and state governments. The feds don't need to get involved until the infraction crosses state lines.
I'm not against state powers (state, meaning Michigan, Maine, Arkansas, NY and so on). The people of each state can decide how much power their state government has. Don't like the control that the CA government has over your life? Move to GA. Don't like the BS tax laws in Oregon? Move the Florida. Or, rather than moving, you can vote the bastards out! But, as a Texan, I have no way of legally voting out Chris Dodd or Barney Frank from office. Why are they making laws that will affect my life? Why can't my local governments do that?
I find this incredibly sad. Aren't there any better, new ideas in fusion research to invest money and time into for experimental purposes?
I've always wondered why they can't just use a supercolider or atom smasher to bang two hydrogen atoms together with enough force to fuse them into helium. Do this with a stream of hydrogen atoms in both directions and you have sustained fusion.
What am I missing here?
Also, income redistributes itself naturally. Rich people spend money to get goods and services. These goods and services are almost always provided by people who are not rich. Rich people also invest money so they can stay rich. This means that jobs are opened up and filled by people who are usually not as rich as the owner of the company.
In theory. In practice however, we get to the current situation.
Do you have a job? Is your employer "rich"? I do, and yes he (or the board anyway) is. Our customers are banks. They are run by rich people and rich boards and they also employ bunches of people and make it possible for me to have a job at the same time.
Hmmm. Seems like the system works in PRACTICE.
That 'income redistribution' as you call it has a much more common name. It's called 'Taxes', and it pays for everything your country does. The country has been collecting taxes for over a century. Obama did it, Junior did it, Clinton did it, etc, etc, ad-nauseum. The simple fact is, that right now, the rich hold almost all of the wealth in the country. It's now at levels not seen since the last great depression oddly enough. It's time for a little balance, or the middle class will simply cease to exist. Did you ever stop to consider that applying more taxes to the rich at this time is actually returning the US to a much more healthy balance?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/worldbusiness/29iht-income.4.5075504.html
Can you show me where in the Constitution it says that the government's job is to provide a balance of wealth for the people? I can't seem to find it in there anywhere.
Also, income redistributes itself naturally. Rich people spend money to get goods and services. These goods and services are almost always provided by people who are not rich. Rich people also invest money so they can stay rich. This means that jobs are opened up and filled by people who are usually not as rich as the owner of the company.
Cap and Trade - Pragmatic, market-based solution to a serious problem, a solution that Libertarians loved until a Democratic president proposed it. Centrist.
Universal Health Care - The standard for Western industrial nationals, and supported in some form by 60-80% of the US population. Centrist.
Income Redistribution - A loaded term for making the wealthy pay their fair share for the national infrastructure that as capital owners they get far more use from. Centrist (the rightist Republican version of course is Income Redistribution from the poor and middle classes to the rich).
Canceling NASA projects - eliminating wasteful spending. Centrist.
Studying global warming - Necessary science to resolve a looming crisis. Non-political.
So yeah, fairly centrist so far.
I don't think you know what Libertarian means. Let me tell what THIS Libertarian believes.
Cap and Trade- Government needs to stay out of the private affairs of the people and the businesses they run.
Universal Health Care- The federal government should never pay for what the states can do for themselves. States can do Universal Health Care if they decide to... or not. Either way, government needs to stay out of the private affairs of the people and the businesses they run.
Income Redistribution- The government has no business telling the people what do with their money. Government needs to stay out of the private affairs of the people and the businesses they run.
Canceling NASA projects- Currently, NASA serves a role in national security. Also, it is a job that neither the states nor private industries can do. NASA is a government role. I'd hardly call it wasteful either. Ever watch TV, use a navigation device, make a phone call overseas use a non-stick skillet? All NASA's doing.
Studying global warming- Wait! I thought the debate was over and the science was settled. What's there to study? Sorry, but AGW theories have proven to be full of fraud, outright lies and power grabs. While I agree that research needs to be done, cutting NASA's budget is not the way to go about it. There is so much more to our climate than what we see here on Earth.
So, no not a centrist.
As to being a Libertarian, let me sum it up this way:
The federal government should only what only the federal government can do! This means that anything the states can do, the federal government should say out of. Anything that is not nationally security related or deals with interstate commerce, the feds should stay out of it. If it ain't specifically spelled out in the Constitution as a job the feds should be doing, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD STAY OUT OF IT!!!
I'm used to it by now. The Obama administration has, thus far, (when one counts actual policy actions, rather than words) been pretty much a long sequence of Obama doing something that is centrist-democrat at best, "Bush III, but literate" at worst then being howled at by republicans(many of whom supported virtually identical policies in the recent past) because anything a communist-fascist-muslim-sleeper-terrorist from kenya does simply must be evil.
Obama? A centrist? Bush III? I think your ideas of what defines a "centrist" are off. Cap and Trade, Universal Health Care, Income Redistribution, cancelling the moon and Orion missions and repurposing NASA to study global warming... hardly what I'd call centrist. Boy, I'd hate to see what you call a lefty.
Here:
http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/msi-shows-off-10-inch-android-tablet-running-new-tegra-chipset/
Now you've heard of one, it will reportedly be available later this year for $500.
Awesome, thanx. Saw that earlier today after the post but didn't get a chance to read the specifics on it.
Bullshit. How many iPhone clones have hit the market in the last 2 years? The hardware is virtually identical.
It's not about the hardware, it's about the software. And if you want the software, you've got to drink the Kool-aid, because as soon as you start screwing with the software, it just doesn't work as well.
The GP said, "Why not create your own open source tablet to compete, and let the marketplace decide?"
My response was that I couldn't (that's an italic I, not a slash). For that matter I don't think any startup could without some serious financial and legal backing. But, you are correct about the clones. I would not be surprised to see companies like Google coming out with a clonePad in the near future running Android/Google Apps. And again, it all comes down to who has the big bucks and enormous legal team.
You're absolutely right. It's such a shame that no one has yet determined a way to break the locks that bind the iPhone and the iPod Touch to the App Store. You could even say these devices are imprisoned, jailed. If only some intrepid group of hackers could find a way to break these devices out of jail, allowing those that wish it a way to modify their devices or install "unauthorized" applications onto them. If only there were some way to get the word out, and allow those that wish to make use of this mythical hack to find it. Perhaps some day such technology will exist.
Phhhht! It will rain black before that ever happens!
If you want open and free, go somewhere else and take your chances
Where? The only company I could see releasing a copy of this thing without getting sued into oblivion is Google and it's Android OS and I've heard no plans of a Google tablet (gPad?). MS could fight off the lawsuits, but their UI would suck and probably be just as locked down.
Attacking Apple's products is one thing. Why not create your own open source tablet to compete, and let the marketplace decide?
Because you can't. See, the problem is not the lockdown. I'd be OK with that as some people need to be locked down, and they know it. These are the same people who will purchase this product. That's what choice is all about.
Except,there really is no choice. If I were to "design" (copy) the iPad with all the neat little features the iPad has (multitouch, the way you slide objects and pages around etc.) and release it with a fully open OS with no restrictions on how it is used or what it runs, I wouldn't get my first one out the door before a horde of Apple lawyers break down my door with a flurry of patent infringement lawsuits. Even if I could beat some or all of them, the court costs and the years waiting for a resolution would bankrupt me.
It actually has a robust power source; it is powered almost entirely by the user's sense of self-importance.
So, it runs on smug?