So, uh, making a phone that runs apps like everybody else's is innovative, but making a phone that uses the web and javascript for apps, which nobody has done before on a phone, is not innovative?
You know, looking at the fact that his blog has a single post, this one, and that he has another blog on blogspot which also has a single post, and both look a whole lot like they are designed to touch on subjects which are likely to get them onto news sites like Slashdot or Digg, and then generate large amounts of discussion because they are obviously silly, I'm assuming the guy is doing some good old-fashioned trolling for one reason or another.
You really have a hard time dealing with the fact that people might not agree with you, don't you?
Here's the deal: Science is not about "desired outcomes". Science is about objective facts. It is not the place of science to dictate a "desired outcome". Science merely observes and predicts. If we know a desired outcome, science may tell us how to get there, or how far along we are. Science may also tell you the consequences of that outcome.
But it can never tell you which outcome is desired, because desire is inherently subjective.
Thus, demanding that climate scientists tell us what the desired equilibrium is is non-sensical, just as it is non-sensical to ask a physicist what the best gravitational acceleration is, or what the best colour of the sky is.
Yes, I disagree with you, therefore fulfilling the definition of a troll.
And yes, gravity is an active area of research. Doesn't mean you'll be able to jump off a cliff and not die any day soon.
Global warming is an active area of research too. Doesn't mean it's very likely that the overall forecast is going to change dramatically either, even if the details might.
Oreskes would have us believe that no climate scientist, anywhere, has ever found evidence that Global Warming doesn't exist.
She obviously would have us believe no such thing. I'm pretty sure she never claimed that she checked every paper ever and none existed that contradicted it, just that she checked a bunch of them and if there was one she did not find it.
I think a more logical conclusion from that data is that a scientist facing that situation would have considerable difficulty getting published.
And why does your argument apply to global warming, but not to gravity?
TFA suggests that the non-consensus view is being suppressed.
TFA is an opinion piece written by a politician. If you have evidence that anybody is being suppressed, how about laying that out, instead of just unfounded accusations?
Why can't I hear both sides of this debate?
Because science is not necessarily a debate with two sides?
I have heard of global dimming. And to quote your Wikipedia article there,
Some scientists now consider that the effects of global dimming have masked the effect of global warming to some extent and that resolving global dimming may therefore lead to increases in predictions of future temperature rise.
In effect, global dimming means our predictions for global warming trends may have been overly optimistic. It makes the problem worse.
As a free software user, the issue does not exist....As long as you use mainstream, approved software. As soon as you don't, trouble starts encroaching.
As a developer, the issue is trivial. Improvements to gcc, fftw, libgd...
I have several times had to change my projects because of changes to specifically gcc and libgd, among many others. For a couple of projects, I have just not found the time or energy to fix them, and just let them bit-rot.
In six years of Debian desktop use, this has hardly been an issue for me. I've done dist-upgrades for three different releases and they all worked.
Because you are using mainstream software supported by your distro provider. Which they have to do because if they didn't, stuff would keep breaking. Distros exists largely to deal with this very problem! The fact that they manage to work around the problem in a large number of cases doesn't mean there isn't an underlying problem being worked around.
There is a difference in philosophy: Windows must keep compatibility because of angry customers willing to keep using a bunch of valuable software they bought. On the other hand, as you can upgrade your FOSS without licensing costs, they don't care so much about that.
No licensing costs, sure, but it is only free if your time is worth nothing to you.
In the best case, you can recompile a fresh version. In the intermediate case, you have to deal with all the changes in the new version of your software, update configurations, fix breakages, teach your employees the new version... And in the worst case, the software is abandoned and not updated for the changes in its dependencies, meaning you either have to spend a huge effort to learn and update the code, or you're just dead.
Slashdot Mirror
we all know what paves the road to hell, generic idioms, etc.
Maybe we do, but you know who paves the roads, period?
This is silly, and another example of geeks thinking agriculture is simple.
Or maybe it is an example of a Slashdotter thinking he's smarter than everyone else once again.
Where on Earth did you get the idea that this was to be built inside an office building?
It doesn't need hope. It's already succeeded, in Mac OS X.
Do people really need to say "non-viral"?
Yes. It is a genuine concern for many people.
Or take time to express themselves more clearly, hmm? And consider if their comments are meaningful in context?
"All Americans support President Bush" is not a blatant lie, because some people do support him?
I have backed off nothing. It's still a blatant lie. You, however, backed off your blanket condemnation of those who oppose Moore.
Are you implying you couldn't fit seven hours of low-res h.264 video in 8 gigs? You could probably fit 24 hours even at high quality.
So you are saying that absolutely nobody who opposes Moore also defends Bush?
No, but neither did you simply claim that there merely exist some people who do so. Your claim was far broader.
The same folks who attack Michael Moore and call him a liar.
Also claim that it is irresponsible to point out the President lied about Weapons in Iraq.
"The same folks who (1) also (2)" is normally understood as meaning pretty much everybody who (1) also (2).
How about you just read this thread and see all the people who oppose both Moore and Bush?
The same folks who attack Michael Moore and call him a liar.
Also claim that it is irresponsible to point out the President lied about Weapons in Iraq.
I may not know of any lies Michael Moore has told, but I do know that that was a blatant lie just now.
So, uh, making a phone that runs apps like everybody else's is innovative, but making a phone that uses the web and javascript for apps, which nobody has done before on a phone, is not innovative?
People on the internet claim that people on the internet really do matter; news at 11.
My concern with Facebook is that there's no one regulating the utility.
But REGULATION is BAD and the FREE MARKET will SOLVE ALL PROBLEMS!
You know, looking at the fact that his blog has a single post, this one, and that he has another blog on blogspot which also has a single post, and both look a whole lot like they are designed to touch on subjects which are likely to get them onto news sites like Slashdot or Digg, and then generate large amounts of discussion because they are obviously silly, I'm assuming the guy is doing some good old-fashioned trolling for one reason or another.
Stay on topic? The topic is climate science. I assumed you were staying on that topic, but apparently you were not.
You really have a hard time dealing with the fact that people might not agree with you, don't you?
Here's the deal: Science is not about "desired outcomes". Science is about objective facts. It is not the place of science to dictate a "desired outcome". Science merely observes and predicts. If we know a desired outcome, science may tell us how to get there, or how far along we are. Science may also tell you the consequences of that outcome.
But it can never tell you which outcome is desired, because desire is inherently subjective.
Thus, demanding that climate scientists tell us what the desired equilibrium is is non-sensical, just as it is non-sensical to ask a physicist what the best gravitational acceleration is, or what the best colour of the sky is.
Yes, I disagree with you, therefore fulfilling the definition of a troll.
And yes, gravity is an active area of research. Doesn't mean you'll be able to jump off a cliff and not die any day soon.
Global warming is an active area of research too. Doesn't mean it's very likely that the overall forecast is going to change dramatically either, even if the details might.
Oh, and I almost forgot:
What is the desirable climate equilibrium for the planet?
Asking this of a climate scientist is like asking "what is the desirable level of gravity on the Earth?" of a physicist.
Oreskes would have us believe that no climate scientist, anywhere, has ever found evidence that Global Warming doesn't exist.
She obviously would have us believe no such thing. I'm pretty sure she never claimed that she checked every paper ever and none existed that contradicted it, just that she checked a bunch of them and if there was one she did not find it.
I think a more logical conclusion from that data is that a scientist facing that situation would have considerable difficulty getting published.
And why does your argument apply to global warming, but not to gravity?
TFA suggests that the non-consensus view is being suppressed.
TFA is an opinion piece written by a politician. If you have evidence that anybody is being suppressed, how about laying that out, instead of just unfounded accusations?
Why can't I hear both sides of this debate?
Because science is not necessarily a debate with two sides?
I have heard of global dimming. And to quote your Wikipedia article there,
Some scientists now consider that the effects of global dimming have masked the effect of global warming to some extent and that resolving global dimming may therefore lead to increases in predictions of future temperature rise.
In effect, global dimming means our predictions for global warming trends may have been overly optimistic. It makes the problem worse.
As a free software user, the issue does not exist. ...As long as you use mainstream, approved software. As soon as you don't, trouble starts encroaching.
As a developer, the issue is trivial. Improvements to gcc, fftw, libgd...
I have several times had to change my projects because of changes to specifically gcc and libgd, among many others. For a couple of projects, I have just not found the time or energy to fix them, and just let them bit-rot.
In six years of Debian desktop use, this has hardly been an issue for me. I've done dist-upgrades for three different releases and they all worked.
Because you are using mainstream software supported by your distro provider. Which they have to do because if they didn't, stuff would keep breaking. Distros exists largely to deal with this very problem! The fact that they manage to work around the problem in a large number of cases doesn't mean there isn't an underlying problem being worked around.
So... All the studies showed that the consensus view is correct... And because you know it's wrong... Everybody's being censored?
"The lack of evidence alone is proof of a conspiracy?"
There is a difference in philosophy: Windows must keep compatibility because of angry customers willing to keep using a bunch of valuable software they bought. On the other hand, as you can upgrade your FOSS without licensing costs, they don't care so much about that.
No licensing costs, sure, but it is only free if your time is worth nothing to you.
In the best case, you can recompile a fresh version. In the intermediate case, you have to deal with all the changes in the new version of your software, update configurations, fix breakages, teach your employees the new version... And in the worst case, the software is abandoned and not updated for the changes in its dependencies, meaning you either have to spend a huge effort to learn and update the code, or you're just dead.