Well, no not really, But there's no reason these things can't be made nuclear and I'm sure the air force already has a version with a warhead, so for the most part your concern is valid. Other nations won't know if we fired a nuke or not, although if we fire them one at a time, any nation we're worried about can wait it out without compromising a MAD strategy.
It's fucking expensive. Having a 1 time use ballistic missile is going to cost 100s of millions to a billion dollars a shot.
An SR-71 went mach 3, had stealth capabilities, could fly anywhere on a tank of fuel, and had to have life support for pilots. They cost about 35 million a piece once in production. Why would you think a missile would cost 100's of millions to a billion dollars each? Compared to the cost of operating bases, maintaining troops, and flying conventional aircraft, these are probably a significant saving.
To allow for quick strike capability, they have to be manned at all times, and ready to fire, so the ongoing "maintenance costs" on it are very high.
Compared to the cost of maintaining fleets of conventional aircraft around the world, for the same task?
Why? Who are you realistically going to strike with it. Anywhere in the middle east, North Korea, and most of Europe is currently within fighter range and can be hit in relatively short time from conventional fighter/bombers.
The idea being, we don't have to maintain aircraft carriers and large fleets of fighter/bombers everywhere in the world. Instead we can have a smaller number of foreign bases, or at least smaller bases, without compromising our ability to hit anyone anywhere hard and fast. The air fleet is moving more and more to unmanned vehicles and this is just one more part of that strategy.
Your comments are useful but also highlight the difference between the iPhone and Nexus. You can make the Nexus work well for power conservation by picking and choosing apps, changing the wi-fi settings, and when things go wrong looking at what was draining the battery and no longer using that app. You can install third party tools that some people say will help and some people say just drain more power.
This is great for geeks like us and I like having the settings under my own control. This contrasts with normal users and how Apple is handling it. They're simply not approving apps with crappy battery performance and only exposing APIs to third party developers that they trust will be used in way that does conserve battery. To the average end user they have fewer choices, but do nothing at all to make the battery last.
This is quite representative of Android versus iPhone. Apple designs in a fashion that limits users, but also takes care of things for the user in order to appeal to the mainstream. Android is more diverse, more open, more able to be customized, but also not as polished and simple and efficient for the mainstream user who knows nothing about how it works and does not want to.
Except that once you buy the paper you own it, so responsibility then shifts to you. Google still owns the servers that the guy posted on.
Except of course, you are incorrect. Google may own the servers, but the individual still own the statement because they still hold copyright on it. If you want to push the analogy to the breaking point, you could say since it is displayed on the computer monitor, the person who owns that particular monitor is guilty, since the content is now being published on that screen and the screen is not owned by Google.
I don't think it makes sense to extend the analogy that far though. Tool makers and general purpose publishers should not be held accountable for enforcing the law on all their users. It's not practical nor does it make sense from an ethical accountability standpoint any more than holding you responsible for any libelous comment I post that you cause to be displayed on your monitor.
Maybe they should... Is it necessary for us as a society to protect that? Is it free speech at all?
DMiax seems to be a troll. Or maybe you're just missing the point entirely. It doesn't matter if it is protected free speech or not. This is about providers of tools and services being held accountable for policing the use of those tools and services. Most law has an idea of individual responsibility which is why the phone company is not responsible for any crimes committed using a phone. It's why printer makers aren't held legally accountable for making sure no one uses them to print kiddie porn. It's why hammer manufacturers are not sued every time someone is murdered with a hammer.
It's the fine line that the law should adjust carefully and is hard to get it right.
No, it isn't. It's a simple principal that people are responsible for their own crimes, not the people that provide them general purpose tools. Even in the litigious US you don't win if you sue a tool maker for a crime committed with that tool unless you can show they were actively encouraging people to buy that tool for use in that crime.
but the law was not written with the internet in mind
Nor should it be. This is the same as holding Kinkos responsible for making sure no one makes Xerox copies of libelous statements for distribution. Both are simply general purpose publishers. So long as they respond to court orders to identify and stop such illegal actions when detected, they should not be held responsible for the actions of individuals who commit crimes.
Google was not hacked: they invited everyone to post content, so the similarity is lost.
The Mead paper company is not going to like this. They not only invite everyone to use their paper to write things on, but they actively promote it. Now clearly they will be held responsible for all the libel written on their paper.
This happens all the time with laptops and cell phones. I've had a cellphone confiscated when it was shipped over, friends had laptops confiscated the exact same way.
Wait what? We're talking about it being confiscated at the border when being carried through by an airlines traveller. That's not the same as being confiscated when shipped through the mail, although I've never had that happen either. Seriously, I used to do a lot of traveling and I'm pretty sure my cellphone back in the day only worked in the US and was approved there, but no one ever tried confiscating it. No one I've worked with ever had that problem either and a lot of them went to Israel regularly.
Do you have anything to back up your claim that other brands of devices are regularly confiscated or is that just your surmise based upon your experience with the mail?
Maybe you didn't hear about it because no one cares when an anonymous Taiwanese manufacturer has its products confiscated?
A lot of people care when laptops are being seized at the border, regardless of the manufacturer, because a lot of people cross those borders. I've never heard any fellow road warriors warn about this problem.
So here's the fundamental problem in this discussion- the only areas where the iPhone can be said to be better than most other high end handsets that compete with it are entirely subjective.
So I take some exception here. No, I'm not an Apple fanatic. I don't own an iPhone or plan to own one. It's really targeted at a more mainstream audience. That said, user interface design is not a "subjective" criteria. usability testing across large groups can and does create persistent and reproducible results. It's a science, if one often ignored because while it quantifiable in numbers, no one publishes numbers on it because most of the industry performs limited testing with predictable results and there are no industry standard benchmarks for publishing usability results and if here were they would be easily skewed by less than impartial testers.
The upshot being, usability is real. The numbers are real. It works, when it is actually used. You can test it. It's just expansive and takes skills and quantities of cash not available to Tom's Hardware or all but the largest magazines and Web sites that do reviews.
When a wireless device goes to the US, it needs to be approved by the FCC. if it isn't, then it is illegal for use in the US. that simple. no "saftey" reasons, no "terror" reasons. It's just a fucking wireless device that needs to approved first.
Except that in both Israel and the US, this is NEVER enforced for random people coming into the country with random devices. A metric crapload of people from Japan visit with phones that have never been submitted to the FCC and nothing happens. The same goes for laptops going into Israel. Now if you want to sell a device in the country in question, that's a different story, but just bring it in, never a problem.
The difference here is they were actually confiscating the devices at the border which they don't do with other laptops or devices that have not been approved. Probably this was the result of the iPad looking sufficiently different that it was recognizable to average border guards who knew it wasn't for sale there yet, but that's just speculation. None of the reports to date have a good explanation as to why it was singled out and treated differently.
Yeah Dell sells a few, but does not really advertise them or design products specifically for that OS. If they happen to have all components with Linux drivers, Dell sells it with Ubuntu as an option, if you know where to look. If not, they don't. Dell is completely beholden to MS for their bottom line though, so it is not surprising they don't do much with Ubuntu except when negotiating with MS. What surprises me is Ubuntu does not seem to have partnered with anyone to customize Ubuntu for specific hardware offerings, an Ubuntu based netbook, or a boutique computer ala Apple.
That works for routers and phones, but I was thinking of PC software.
Don't forget servers and appliances. Oracle, IBM, Sun, and dozens more sell servers with Linux and other OSS pre-installed.
Most major PC OEMs and even local PC builders in my area don't advertise Linux PCs.
That's true, but with the advent of Netbooks and other cheap hardware a number of companies are selling Linux based computers. Walmart sells them on their Web site. I haven't seen many (any?) with Ubuntu though. Some major OEMs offer it as an option on some of their computers, but those same companies are hopelessly tied to MS for the vast majority of their offerings so they never go anywhere and are not advertised.
If they start charging to get Ubuntu, then the balance tips back in favor of the defacto "standard" OS that everyone else uses.
They aren't charging people to install Ubuntu on their laptops. They're starting to charge people for support on Ubuntu server and for in the cloud services. The only way you'll be paying for Ubuntu on your desktop is if you need support or if you want to backup your machine online with Ubuntu.
This is a GPL product. If they were to start charging for a copy, one guy would buy it then give it away for free to everyone else. That's not much of a business model for anyone.
Canonical appears to be following the stereotypical free software business model: sell services to which the free software can connect.
I'd argue the most common free software model is to sell hardware with free software installed on it in conjunction with services. It is actually very interesting to me that Canonical does not have a hardware offering and does not seem to be partnering with any hardware makers to customize Ubuntu for that company's devices. I don't understand why that is, but maybe it is just under the radar or they have good business reasons.
Do we really want more incompatible software "platforms" than acronyms in our alphabet soup? Does anyone have the courage to stand up and say "compatibility requires talk on standards"?
I'm not seeing how your comment applies. WebOS uses rich HTML applications on top of Webkit. So anything that runs on it can easily be made to run on the iPhone and Android. Palm's recent forays into OS and software development have been very standards compliant and interoperable.
...but if you're being rational, you can't believe that until that theory has more scientific evidence than global warming being largely the result of human influence
a) You're appealing to ignorance (a logical fallacy).
Wow did you fail your informal logic class!
An appeal to ignorance requires no support for a theory, but a theory, by definition has support. That is to say, because it is a theory it has made at least one prediction that would have falsified said theory, otherwise it would be a mere hypothesis.
b) You're still confusing science with truth. Go look up some famous maverick scientists from history who tilted at the consensus
A very important part of science is coming up with alternative hypothesis that you think might, after experimentation be better models. The thing is, while it is always useful to create and test these, if you "believe" them to be a more accurate theory before the experiments have been completed, then you are not being a scientist nor are you being rational. Now I understand people get carried away with their pet ideas and want to believe. It is a strong drive in human thought, but not a logical one. Since you seem interested in logic, it is the classic argumentum ad consequentiam. This has also one of the biggest problems in modern science. People believe their pet hypothesis and then skew numbers or fake data not out of malice, but because they illogically think they are right despite the scientific method not supporting that idea. A scientist or rational person believes the result of the scientific method even while they work to refine and change the best result of the scientific method.
Furthermore, if you're taking warmer or colder temperatures at any given time, even over a period of a few years to be a prediction of any AGW model, then you have no idea what you're talking about.
I'm only quoting the claims of the AGW people.
First, I don't think there are "AGW people". Second, I'd be quite surprised to see an climate scientist claim some increase or decrease of temperature somewhere was a falsifiable test of global warming theory. I see the occasional sensationalist nonsense from reporters that usually has a vague quote from a scientist about global warming in general, but not actual scientists. If you have citations I'd be glad to look at them.
Here's some advice for you. Don't look at what "global warming people" have to say. Just research climactic models and find the one you think is best supported by the scientific evidence; not the one you want to believe, but the one that has best predicted our findings so far. That is science.
Sure you can. You can prove that there is no experiment that can be performed (if experimenting is possible) or observation made that can't be interpreted as proof that the theory is right.
I don't think you know what "prove" means.
As an example, if it gets hotter in the summer, that's considered as proof of AGW. If it gets colder in the winter, all of a sudden, that becomes proof of AGW. No matter what happens, the AGW fanatics twist their theory to show (after the fact) that it's proof of their theory.
That neither proves nor disproves the whether or not AGW is falsifiable or not. Those are simply conditions that might be forecast in different areas in different circumstances to support or refute the theory, but are not falsifiable tests of the theory. Just because one thing is not a falsifiable test of a theory does not mean there can be no falsifiable tests, let alone that you can prove there can be no falsifiable test.
Furthermore, if you're taking warmer or colder temperatures at any given time, even over a period of a few years to be a prediction of any AGW model, then you have no idea what you're talking about.
Anyone ride a motorcycle? They always teach you to "look through your turns" because the bike tends to go where your head is aimed. Regularly accidents happen in which a bike swerves into another vehicle because the rider panics and looks where they don't want to go instead of where they do. Now we can bring this great feature to cars?
The biggest difficulty with this issue is that no "experimentation" has been performed, only modeling.
Experiments don't have to be replicating a situation. For example, you can theorize that we'll find a mechanism by which genetic traits are passed on as an experiment to test the evolution of species. If one can show no such mechanism exists, the theory of the evolution of man is falsified. Making any prediction which would falsify a theory is an experiment. Whenever new data comes in the theory is supported or fails and has to be changed or support moves to a competing theory.
This is the biggest difference between evolution and AGW; evolution has millions of final outcomes but AGW has zero.
Not really. Much of the support for the evolution of man has been in the form of fossils we dig up and tests we perform on them. Likewise historical data we find about temperatures around the world from ice cores to tree rings. We have lots of data coming in that does fall in line with the predictions made and a small amount that is anomalous and requires further work on the theory.
To believe anything else including natural causes cause global warming or that it isn't happening, yes they do.
They have to demonstrate that the anthropogenic global warming theory has axiomatic, logic, data or interpretation flaws...
That would reduce the support for the theory, but not cause any reasonable person to change their mind unless it makes it less well supported than some other theory.
...or that it is an unfalsifiable theory
You can't prove a theory is unfalsifiable. For something to be a theory it has to have had an experiment performed and repeated that would have falsified it. Otherwise you're talking about a hypothesis.
I am not saying this is the case with AGW, just that you do NOT need a competing theory before you can disregard another.
If you're a scientist, yes, you do need a competing theory because for something to be a theory it has to have passed a falsifiable test.
I see, so that means that you will support my hypothesis that money going into your bank account is contributing to the likelihood of a large meteor destroying all life on earth, and the only way to counter it is if for all of those funds to be diverted and go into my bank account instead.
That's an interesting hypothesis. So what falsifiable experiment have you performed that supports your hypothesis? I performed one yesterday when I put money in my account and no meteor destroyed life on earth. So my theory is better supported than your hypothesis so far. I'll repeat my experiment in two weeks.
I think what you're missing is that you are challenging a supported theory in both cases. You need to provide a MORE supported theory to change what I and scientists everywhere believe.
You just hypothesized that the changing climate is the result of natural processes, but if you're being rational, you can't believe that until that theory has more scientific evidence than global warming being largely the result of human influence.
How do you explain the Early Medieval Warm Period, then?
Did you completely miss the point of my post? It's fine to point to possible flaws in the theory of man influenced global warming, but that does nothing at all to promote the belief that the current global warming is caused by any other phenomenon. You need to create a hypothesis as to what is causing global warming and then create and perform falsifiable tests of that hypothesis, and then have those tests repeated. Note this theory has to account for things like the unprecedented rate of change we are now observing.
Now I can go and address how the early medieval warm period fits into current theories of man influenced global warming according to the varied sub theories, primarily that the phenomenon was localized and not representative of global temperatures or the mediterranean heat sink theory. I'm not aware of a CO2 theory for it. I don't really have to though as others seem to have jumped in.
In order for your theory of AGW to be considered correct, it has to explain all the data, including the inconvenient facts about the past.
No, in order for a rational person to consider it to be the most correct understanding to date (science always advances) it has to explain everything better than any other theory. That's the central point of my post that you seem to be missing. Otherwise you're like the young earth creationists who say the big bang theory does not fully explain dark matter, thus we should not believe the theory and god must have done it. A scientist "believes" the most supported theory. A scientist does not dismiss the best supported theory in favor of another theory (like "some sort of natural causes" or "god did it 6000 years ago") until that theory is better supported and better fits the evidence.
I see you've sited[sic] just as many sources as the post you're antagonizing.
I didn't cite any sources. I explained why conceptually the idea of believing an alternative hypothesis needs to be supported, just as all the studies linking global warming to human behavior are. That is to say, "I don't see enough support for this theory so I'm going to assume it is something else at random" is unscientific.
Wow, read into my post a little more why don't you? Geez, can't a guy have a non-political opinion about a technical decision?
You made the following assertion:
This has nothing to do with the President or probably even his CTO that he nominated.
I asked why you believed what you believed and what basis in fact you had for forming that belief. If you're going to make assertions, surely they should have some basis. Asserting the president had nothing to do with something is not just an opinion, it's making a claim and was presented as a statement of fact. Is your decision making process so broken you can't even answer a question as to how you come by your opinions?
Slashdot Mirror
It looks like a nuclear ballistic missile launch.
Well, no not really, But there's no reason these things can't be made nuclear and I'm sure the air force already has a version with a warhead, so for the most part your concern is valid. Other nations won't know if we fired a nuke or not, although if we fire them one at a time, any nation we're worried about can wait it out without compromising a MAD strategy.
It's fucking expensive. Having a 1 time use ballistic missile is going to cost 100s of millions to a billion dollars a shot.
An SR-71 went mach 3, had stealth capabilities, could fly anywhere on a tank of fuel, and had to have life support for pilots. They cost about 35 million a piece once in production. Why would you think a missile would cost 100's of millions to a billion dollars each? Compared to the cost of operating bases, maintaining troops, and flying conventional aircraft, these are probably a significant saving.
To allow for quick strike capability, they have to be manned at all times, and ready to fire, so the ongoing "maintenance costs" on it are very high.
Compared to the cost of maintaining fleets of conventional aircraft around the world, for the same task?
Why? Who are you realistically going to strike with it. Anywhere in the middle east, North Korea, and most of Europe is currently within fighter range and can be hit in relatively short time from conventional fighter/bombers.
The idea being, we don't have to maintain aircraft carriers and large fleets of fighter/bombers everywhere in the world. Instead we can have a smaller number of foreign bases, or at least smaller bases, without compromising our ability to hit anyone anywhere hard and fast. The air fleet is moving more and more to unmanned vehicles and this is just one more part of that strategy.
Your comments are useful but also highlight the difference between the iPhone and Nexus. You can make the Nexus work well for power conservation by picking and choosing apps, changing the wi-fi settings, and when things go wrong looking at what was draining the battery and no longer using that app. You can install third party tools that some people say will help and some people say just drain more power.
This is great for geeks like us and I like having the settings under my own control. This contrasts with normal users and how Apple is handling it. They're simply not approving apps with crappy battery performance and only exposing APIs to third party developers that they trust will be used in way that does conserve battery. To the average end user they have fewer choices, but do nothing at all to make the battery last.
This is quite representative of Android versus iPhone. Apple designs in a fashion that limits users, but also takes care of things for the user in order to appeal to the mainstream. Android is more diverse, more open, more able to be customized, but also not as polished and simple and efficient for the mainstream user who knows nothing about how it works and does not want to.
Except that once you buy the paper you own it, so responsibility then shifts to you. Google still owns the servers that the guy posted on.
Except of course, you are incorrect. Google may own the servers, but the individual still own the statement because they still hold copyright on it. If you want to push the analogy to the breaking point, you could say since it is displayed on the computer monitor, the person who owns that particular monitor is guilty, since the content is now being published on that screen and the screen is not owned by Google.
I don't think it makes sense to extend the analogy that far though. Tool makers and general purpose publishers should not be held accountable for enforcing the law on all their users. It's not practical nor does it make sense from an ethical accountability standpoint any more than holding you responsible for any libelous comment I post that you cause to be displayed on your monitor.
Maybe they should... Is it necessary for us as a society to protect that? Is it free speech at all?
DMiax seems to be a troll. Or maybe you're just missing the point entirely. It doesn't matter if it is protected free speech or not. This is about providers of tools and services being held accountable for policing the use of those tools and services. Most law has an idea of individual responsibility which is why the phone company is not responsible for any crimes committed using a phone. It's why printer makers aren't held legally accountable for making sure no one uses them to print kiddie porn. It's why hammer manufacturers are not sued every time someone is murdered with a hammer.
It's the fine line that the law should adjust carefully and is hard to get it right.
No, it isn't. It's a simple principal that people are responsible for their own crimes, not the people that provide them general purpose tools. Even in the litigious US you don't win if you sue a tool maker for a crime committed with that tool unless you can show they were actively encouraging people to buy that tool for use in that crime.
but the law was not written with the internet in mind
Nor should it be. This is the same as holding Kinkos responsible for making sure no one makes Xerox copies of libelous statements for distribution. Both are simply general purpose publishers. So long as they respond to court orders to identify and stop such illegal actions when detected, they should not be held responsible for the actions of individuals who commit crimes.
Google was not hacked: they invited everyone to post content, so the similarity is lost.
The Mead paper company is not going to like this. They not only invite everyone to use their paper to write things on, but they actively promote it. Now clearly they will be held responsible for all the libel written on their paper.
This happens all the time with laptops and cell phones. I've had a cellphone confiscated when it was shipped over, friends had laptops confiscated the exact same way.
Wait what? We're talking about it being confiscated at the border when being carried through by an airlines traveller. That's not the same as being confiscated when shipped through the mail, although I've never had that happen either. Seriously, I used to do a lot of traveling and I'm pretty sure my cellphone back in the day only worked in the US and was approved there, but no one ever tried confiscating it. No one I've worked with ever had that problem either and a lot of them went to Israel regularly.
Do you have anything to back up your claim that other brands of devices are regularly confiscated or is that just your surmise based upon your experience with the mail?
Maybe you didn't hear about it because no one cares when an anonymous Taiwanese manufacturer has its products confiscated?
A lot of people care when laptops are being seized at the border, regardless of the manufacturer, because a lot of people cross those borders. I've never heard any fellow road warriors warn about this problem.
People who didn't declare their iPads when entering the country were not specifically searched for iPads.
No, but those several of those did have them confiscated. This has not been the case with any other laptop I know about.
Don't see any hissing.
Listen... do you smell something? -Dr Ray Stantz
So here's the fundamental problem in this discussion- the only areas where the iPhone can be said to be better than most other high end handsets that compete with it are entirely subjective.
So I take some exception here. No, I'm not an Apple fanatic. I don't own an iPhone or plan to own one. It's really targeted at a more mainstream audience. That said, user interface design is not a "subjective" criteria. usability testing across large groups can and does create persistent and reproducible results. It's a science, if one often ignored because while it quantifiable in numbers, no one publishes numbers on it because most of the industry performs limited testing with predictable results and there are no industry standard benchmarks for publishing usability results and if here were they would be easily skewed by less than impartial testers.
The upshot being, usability is real. The numbers are real. It works, when it is actually used. You can test it. It's just expansive and takes skills and quantities of cash not available to Tom's Hardware or all but the largest magazines and Web sites that do reviews.
When a wireless device goes to the US, it needs to be approved by the FCC. if it isn't, then it is illegal for use in the US. that simple. no "saftey" reasons, no "terror" reasons. It's just a fucking wireless device that needs to approved first.
Except that in both Israel and the US, this is NEVER enforced for random people coming into the country with random devices. A metric crapload of people from Japan visit with phones that have never been submitted to the FCC and nothing happens. The same goes for laptops going into Israel. Now if you want to sell a device in the country in question, that's a different story, but just bring it in, never a problem.
The difference here is they were actually confiscating the devices at the border which they don't do with other laptops or devices that have not been approved. Probably this was the result of the iPad looking sufficiently different that it was recognizable to average border guards who knew it wasn't for sale there yet, but that's just speculation. None of the reports to date have a good explanation as to why it was singled out and treated differently.
Yeah Dell sells a few, but does not really advertise them or design products specifically for that OS. If they happen to have all components with Linux drivers, Dell sells it with Ubuntu as an option, if you know where to look. If not, they don't. Dell is completely beholden to MS for their bottom line though, so it is not surprising they don't do much with Ubuntu except when negotiating with MS. What surprises me is Ubuntu does not seem to have partnered with anyone to customize Ubuntu for specific hardware offerings, an Ubuntu based netbook, or a boutique computer ala Apple.
That works for routers and phones, but I was thinking of PC software.
Don't forget servers and appliances. Oracle, IBM, Sun, and dozens more sell servers with Linux and other OSS pre-installed.
Most major PC OEMs and even local PC builders in my area don't advertise Linux PCs.
That's true, but with the advent of Netbooks and other cheap hardware a number of companies are selling Linux based computers. Walmart sells them on their Web site. I haven't seen many (any?) with Ubuntu though. Some major OEMs offer it as an option on some of their computers, but those same companies are hopelessly tied to MS for the vast majority of their offerings so they never go anywhere and are not advertised.
If they start charging to get Ubuntu, then the balance tips back in favor of the defacto "standard" OS that everyone else uses.
They aren't charging people to install Ubuntu on their laptops. They're starting to charge people for support on Ubuntu server and for in the cloud services. The only way you'll be paying for Ubuntu on your desktop is if you need support or if you want to backup your machine online with Ubuntu.
This is a GPL product. If they were to start charging for a copy, one guy would buy it then give it away for free to everyone else. That's not much of a business model for anyone.
Canonical appears to be following the stereotypical free software business model: sell services to which the free software can connect.
I'd argue the most common free software model is to sell hardware with free software installed on it in conjunction with services. It is actually very interesting to me that Canonical does not have a hardware offering and does not seem to be partnering with any hardware makers to customize Ubuntu for that company's devices. I don't understand why that is, but maybe it is just under the radar or they have good business reasons.
Do we really want more incompatible software "platforms" than acronyms in our alphabet soup? Does anyone have the courage to stand up and say "compatibility requires talk on standards"?
I'm not seeing how your comment applies. WebOS uses rich HTML applications on top of Webkit. So anything that runs on it can easily be made to run on the iPhone and Android. Palm's recent forays into OS and software development have been very standards compliant and interoperable.
...but if you're being rational, you can't believe that until that theory has more scientific evidence than global warming being largely the result of human influence
a) You're appealing to ignorance (a logical fallacy).
Wow did you fail your informal logic class!
An appeal to ignorance requires no support for a theory, but a theory, by definition has support. That is to say, because it is a theory it has made at least one prediction that would have falsified said theory, otherwise it would be a mere hypothesis.
b) You're still confusing science with truth. Go look up some famous maverick scientists from history who tilted at the consensus
A very important part of science is coming up with alternative hypothesis that you think might, after experimentation be better models. The thing is, while it is always useful to create and test these, if you "believe" them to be a more accurate theory before the experiments have been completed, then you are not being a scientist nor are you being rational. Now I understand people get carried away with their pet ideas and want to believe. It is a strong drive in human thought, but not a logical one. Since you seem interested in logic, it is the classic argumentum ad consequentiam. This has also one of the biggest problems in modern science. People believe their pet hypothesis and then skew numbers or fake data not out of malice, but because they illogically think they are right despite the scientific method not supporting that idea. A scientist or rational person believes the result of the scientific method even while they work to refine and change the best result of the scientific method.
Furthermore, if you're taking warmer or colder temperatures at any given time, even over a period of a few years to be a prediction of any AGW model, then you have no idea what you're talking about.
I'm only quoting the claims of the AGW people.
First, I don't think there are "AGW people". Second, I'd be quite surprised to see an climate scientist claim some increase or decrease of temperature somewhere was a falsifiable test of global warming theory. I see the occasional sensationalist nonsense from reporters that usually has a vague quote from a scientist about global warming in general, but not actual scientists. If you have citations I'd be glad to look at them.
Here's some advice for you. Don't look at what "global warming people" have to say. Just research climactic models and find the one you think is best supported by the scientific evidence; not the one you want to believe, but the one that has best predicted our findings so far. That is science.
You can't prove a theory is unfalsifiable
Sure you can. You can prove that there is no experiment that can be performed (if experimenting is possible) or observation made that can't be interpreted as proof that the theory is right.
I don't think you know what "prove" means.
As an example, if it gets hotter in the summer, that's considered as proof of AGW. If it gets colder in the winter, all of a sudden, that becomes proof of AGW. No matter what happens, the AGW fanatics twist their theory to show (after the fact) that it's proof of their theory.
That neither proves nor disproves the whether or not AGW is falsifiable or not. Those are simply conditions that might be forecast in different areas in different circumstances to support or refute the theory, but are not falsifiable tests of the theory. Just because one thing is not a falsifiable test of a theory does not mean there can be no falsifiable tests, let alone that you can prove there can be no falsifiable test.
Furthermore, if you're taking warmer or colder temperatures at any given time, even over a period of a few years to be a prediction of any AGW model, then you have no idea what you're talking about.
Anyone ride a motorcycle? They always teach you to "look through your turns" because the bike tends to go where your head is aimed. Regularly accidents happen in which a bike swerves into another vehicle because the rider panics and looks where they don't want to go instead of where they do. Now we can bring this great feature to cars?
The biggest difficulty with this issue is that no "experimentation" has been performed, only modeling.
Experiments don't have to be replicating a situation. For example, you can theorize that we'll find a mechanism by which genetic traits are passed on as an experiment to test the evolution of species. If one can show no such mechanism exists, the theory of the evolution of man is falsified. Making any prediction which would falsify a theory is an experiment. Whenever new data comes in the theory is supported or fails and has to be changed or support moves to a competing theory.
This is the biggest difference between evolution and AGW; evolution has millions of final outcomes but AGW has zero.
Not really. Much of the support for the evolution of man has been in the form of fossils we dig up and tests we perform on them. Likewise historical data we find about temperatures around the world from ice cores to tree rings. We have lots of data coming in that does fall in line with the predictions made and a small amount that is anomalous and requires further work on the theory.
No, they don't have to have a competing theory.
To believe anything else including natural causes cause global warming or that it isn't happening, yes they do.
They have to demonstrate that the anthropogenic global warming theory has axiomatic, logic, data or interpretation flaws...
That would reduce the support for the theory, but not cause any reasonable person to change their mind unless it makes it less well supported than some other theory.
...or that it is an unfalsifiable theory
You can't prove a theory is unfalsifiable. For something to be a theory it has to have had an experiment performed and repeated that would have falsified it. Otherwise you're talking about a hypothesis.
I am not saying this is the case with AGW, just that you do NOT need a competing theory before you can disregard another.
If you're a scientist, yes, you do need a competing theory because for something to be a theory it has to have passed a falsifiable test.
I see, so that means that you will support my hypothesis that money going into your bank account is contributing to the likelihood of a large meteor destroying all life on earth, and the only way to counter it is if for all of those funds to be diverted and go into my bank account instead.
That's an interesting hypothesis. So what falsifiable experiment have you performed that supports your hypothesis? I performed one yesterday when I put money in my account and no meteor destroyed life on earth. So my theory is better supported than your hypothesis so far. I'll repeat my experiment in two weeks.
I think what you're missing is that you are challenging a supported theory in both cases. You need to provide a MORE supported theory to change what I and scientists everywhere believe.
You just hypothesized that the changing climate is the result of natural processes, but if you're being rational, you can't believe that until that theory has more scientific evidence than global warming being largely the result of human influence.
How do you explain the Early Medieval Warm Period, then?
Did you completely miss the point of my post? It's fine to point to possible flaws in the theory of man influenced global warming, but that does nothing at all to promote the belief that the current global warming is caused by any other phenomenon. You need to create a hypothesis as to what is causing global warming and then create and perform falsifiable tests of that hypothesis, and then have those tests repeated. Note this theory has to account for things like the unprecedented rate of change we are now observing.
Now I can go and address how the early medieval warm period fits into current theories of man influenced global warming according to the varied sub theories, primarily that the phenomenon was localized and not representative of global temperatures or the mediterranean heat sink theory. I'm not aware of a CO2 theory for it. I don't really have to though as others seem to have jumped in.
In order for your theory of AGW to be considered correct, it has to explain all the data, including the inconvenient facts about the past.
No, in order for a rational person to consider it to be the most correct understanding to date (science always advances) it has to explain everything better than any other theory. That's the central point of my post that you seem to be missing. Otherwise you're like the young earth creationists who say the big bang theory does not fully explain dark matter, thus we should not believe the theory and god must have done it. A scientist "believes" the most supported theory. A scientist does not dismiss the best supported theory in favor of another theory (like "some sort of natural causes" or "god did it 6000 years ago") until that theory is better supported and better fits the evidence.
I see you've sited[sic] just as many sources as the post you're antagonizing.
I didn't cite any sources. I explained why conceptually the idea of believing an alternative hypothesis needs to be supported, just as all the studies linking global warming to human behavior are. That is to say, "I don't see enough support for this theory so I'm going to assume it is something else at random" is unscientific.
Wow, read into my post a little more why don't you? Geez, can't a guy have a non-political opinion about a technical decision?
You made the following assertion:
This has nothing to do with the President or probably even his CTO that he nominated.
I asked why you believed what you believed and what basis in fact you had for forming that belief. If you're going to make assertions, surely they should have some basis. Asserting the president had nothing to do with something is not just an opinion, it's making a claim and was presented as a statement of fact. Is your decision making process so broken you can't even answer a question as to how you come by your opinions?