Not only does it fail the Occum's Razor principle.
The description is obviously simplified and leaves out the full details. You can't apply Occam's Razor without having a full understanding of the situation.
It also doesn't manage to explain why CO2 drops 800 years after the warmth peak.
Do you have a citation for that actually happening? The comments have similar statements, with the response that this is a misinterpretation of the data and that no such lag exists in the drop.
It's "revealing" only if you ignore the facts that it contains well-known falsehoods and misrepresentations that have been debunked long before it was produced. What it "reveals" is that its producers were pushing an agenda, and that agenda did not involve telling the truth.
There are only "sides" in the media circus and among non-scientists. The scientists are pretty much unanimous about basic facts, and only really disagree on the details.
Details such as "is it already too late to do anything?".
The problem with controversies that have become too political is there is NO WAY to get good definitive information about global warming or any other politicized issue.
You could try just listening to the actual scientists, and not the media circus.
Please don't defend the 'truthiness' of a statement you appear to have no first-hand experience with.
Which one is that? "We are not a patent troll company. We protect our IP and our licenses, but we do not want to litigate" or "...the Cease and Desist letter factory they are running in Redmond"?
Also, your examples there are both trademark conflicts and not patent lawsuits, which is what I was under the impression that the whole thread was about.
If they have a Cease and Desist letter factory, perhaps you could list a couple of projects that have received C&D letters from Microsoft? How about ten?
I'm interested in the truth, and I'm not above listening to someone who suggests that this is part of a natural cycle.
Then you are really not very interested in the truth. There is a lot of data and research out there. Why are you not taking part of that? It speaks pretty clearly.
It's also pretty hard for schoolchildren to memorize the names of all countries, rivers, lakes, mountains, and so forth. Does this mean we only have ten of each of those?
Slashdot Mirror
If you put your servers physically in the hands of an attacker, there is nothing you can do to stop them quite by definition.
Having an encrypted filesystem stops anyone who's after your data even if they have local access.
Assuming, of course, a perfect implementation.
Not only does it fail the Occum's Razor principle.
The description is obviously simplified and leaves out the full details. You can't apply Occam's Razor without having a full understanding of the situation.
It also doesn't manage to explain why CO2 drops 800 years after the warmth peak.
Do you have a citation for that actually happening? The comments have similar statements, with the response that this is a misinterpretation of the data and that no such lag exists in the drop.
They certainly don't all agree on Al Gores take on it, and they don't all agree on the "Day after tomorrow's" take on it.
Neither of those are scientists, so I don't know why you even bring them up.
Here is a good analysis:
7 /03/swindled/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/200
It's "revealing" only if you ignore the facts that it contains well-known falsehoods and misrepresentations that have been debunked long before it was produced. What it "reveals" is that its producers were pushing an agenda, and that agenda did not involve telling the truth.
There are only "sides" in the media circus and among non-scientists. The scientists are pretty much unanimous about basic facts, and only really disagree on the details.
Details such as "is it already too late to do anything?".
The problem with controversies that have become too political is there is NO WAY to get good definitive information about global warming or any other politicized issue.
You could try just listening to the actual scientists, and not the media circus.
For instance, http://realclimate.org/.
Quite. See the point being made yet?
To be fair, so are most other subject lines.
http://www.google.com/search?q=faraday+diode+propu lsionu lsionl sion
http://www.google.com/search?q=onsager+diode+prop
http://www.google.com/search?q=nernst+diode+propu
I can't seem to find what you are referring to. Care to point me in the right direction?
Yeah, you're totally much smarter than her!
I'm guessing because they actually want their clock to show the right time. Crazy idea, I know.
The only 'new' thing is to use a diode to generate a DC field from externally applied AC.
From an externally applied AC field. If you don't think that idea is new, care to show some earlier examples of it?
Not half as weird as the things people think it is.
Just don't claim that 'GMOs' are natural.
Nobody is claiming that but you.
And what more reliable source could one image than a 9/11 conspiracy theorist?
No, nothing is cyclic. Entropy always increases, and everything decays.
Please don't defend the 'truthiness' of a statement you appear to have no first-hand experience with.
Which one is that? "We are not a patent troll company. We protect our IP and our licenses, but we do not want to litigate" or "...the Cease and Desist letter factory they are running in Redmond"?
Also, your examples there are both trademark conflicts and not patent lawsuits, which is what I was under the impression that the whole thread was about.
If they have a Cease and Desist letter factory, perhaps you could list a couple of projects that have received C&D letters from Microsoft? How about ten?
I'm interested in the truth, and I'm not above listening to someone who suggests that this is part of a natural cycle.
Then you are really not very interested in the truth. There is a lot of data and research out there. Why are you not taking part of that? It speaks pretty clearly.
Water flow in a river is turbulent and chaotic. That does not mean that we can't measure and predict average water flow speeds and water levels.
These things really aren't hard to understand, unless you make an effort to not see them.
Great job reading old Slashdot stories and repeating their contents! Have a cookie!
Thank you, Captain Obvious.
It's also pretty hard for schoolchildren to memorize the names of all countries, rivers, lakes, mountains, and so forth. Does this mean we only have ten of each of those?
Why is being a planet treated as some sort of exclusive club? Sure, they're planets, every last one of them. So what?