Liberal studies, government classes, history, social studies, whatever you want to call it, this is where they teach you to comply. The point is not to raise a generation of defiant people who know their rights and that they are being violated.
All the principals in the conspiracy detail their own roles in the Climategate mails. Including their conspiratorial efforts to "redefine the meaning of peer review."
They make their own views on science pretty clear in those mails - that it is primarily a tool to implement their own political ideologies.
Oh, I forget, they were "cleared" by some group of supposed experts, none of whom have actually claimed to have read the bulk of the mails themselves.
Plenty of people have shown the conclusions reached by the pet climate "scientists" to be based upon falsified data, manipulated data, and basic research methodology flaws.
These people have published papers on the subject. The reaction was to "redefine the meaning of peer review."
The Met office can conclude one thing from their data (and they are likely to support any conclusion that reels in the grant money) and other people have concluded that the Met is full of shit.
The most telling thing is the slander "skeptic" that is bandied about these days. Isn't every scientist a skeptic? We're talking science here, not religion. Or are we?
Of course you can't argue with it. I never implied a vast conspiracy, though. It's pretty clear from the Climategate mails that there are less than a dozen individuals involved in the data faking regime.
Everybody knows who they are at this point.
Anyway, I'm not inciting anything, but just offering some insight as to how the general public will eventually deal with people who subvert science to push their political agendas at the expense of the public.
The kind of conspiracy I am contemplating is very, very evident if you read the Climategate mails. They are very open and honest in private about their plans.
Please, pray tell, explain to me the context of "redefine the meaning of peer review." I could always use a good laugh!
This is a pretty standard slander and would probably work with the audience if I was advocating some other position than skepticism of any "science" crafted by shysters.
You see though, it's not "science" when the data is made up and then destroyed. It's undercover political activism. This much is clear if you read the Climategate mails.
When you attempt to subvert the system and then have the audacity to call the general public morons for not buying into a faked science, they have a right to be angry. Maybe they even kill you. To me, this is just amusing and it should be a lesson to future Communistic scientists who think they have the right to deceive everybody in order to push their agenda at the taxpayers' expense.
In any event, "science" is mainly just a tool to confirm the plans that have been in place at higher levels for decades.
If you work in security then I feel very sorry for your employers and customers.
Are you really naive enough to believe that deep surveillance on Australia's communications infrastructure is NOT in the ChiCom's interest?
It's telling that you have to rely upon strawmen to make your point. Very, very telling. Perhaps the ASIO should take a closer look at you and your "security" business.
Wow, you're just really naive. Really, really naive.
Even without decrypting the information all the way back in WWII, traffic analysis allowed some major victories on the battlefield. With this technique, being automated and in near real time, one could infer a lot about an adversary without actually decrypting one single thing.
Maybe you're not concerned with privacy, but that's why you're not working in this field!
The difference between a processor and a fully integrated SOC is apparently lost on you.
Hint, one requires a lot of motherboard infrastructure, all of which draws more power, and requires a larger sized device.
The other's essentially a whole computer on one chip, requires less power, and is a much smaller package.
The $19 Atom still needs a whole chipset, motherboard, etc, all of which costs money. The ARM just needs pinouts to the peripherals and expansion ports.
See you can't blame people for not getting the branding straight. Personally I can't be assed to even care enough to worry about what the names really are, despite my ability to learn these things if I really wanted. The excruciating minutia of Microsoft's marketing terms of art are just not worth my time.
So, ultimately, I would counter your claim and say that people have every excuse for getting it wrong.
What I understand is that there's an ARM Windows, on the tablet side, an Intel Windows on the tablet side, a PC Windows, and a phone Windows all of which have some sort of 8 in the name, excepting the tablet one which you say has no "8" in it, but I have read that it is a Windows 8 product before. Maybe you can chalk it up to a journalist being confused, or whatnot, but ultimately it's just a gigantic clusterfuck any way you look at it.
ARM doesn't need better performance in an age when most devices are only using a fraction of their capabilities anyway. It is sufficient to beat Intel on power consumption alone.
Unfortunately, I believe that since only Samsung knows how many activations there were that the data points the analyst was likely to have derived his conclusions from come from certain spyware type analytics programs, and surveys.
Explaining that there's no Windows 8 Phone, but that it's really Windows Phone 8, and that Windows 8 tablet is different from Windows RT 8 or whatever, to an average consumer, would probably be a more effective way to get their head to literally explode than anything you saw in the classic movie Scanners.
This is ultimately what's being discussed here.
Re:Apple doesn't want to be *more* dependent on In
on
Apple, ARM, and Intel
·
· Score: 1
"a laptop's display is probably the worst power drain, especially with a Retina display."
The majority of power used in a modern display is consumed in lighting the thing, not switching pixels.
It's true - since fall started, I kept the door in my office room closed and the heat off. The only thing running in here is a Mac Mini and it heats the room to a comfortable 66Â just doing household media center type duties.
To be fair, it's more cost effective per BTU than a space heater.
Slashdot Mirror
You forgot the ironically-named 'free speech zones' where you don't have freedom of speech.
Liberal studies, government classes, history, social studies, whatever you want to call it, this is where they teach you to comply. The point is not to raise a generation of defiant people who know their rights and that they are being violated.
"I got sick of all the idiotic fanaticism."
You should really look into bashing Android for a while - there are a lot of idiotic fanatics astroturfing that heap of shit OS on here every day.
All the principals in the conspiracy detail their own roles in the Climategate mails. Including their conspiratorial efforts to "redefine the meaning of peer review."
They make their own views on science pretty clear in those mails - that it is primarily a tool to implement their own political ideologies.
Oh, I forget, they were "cleared" by some group of supposed experts, none of whom have actually claimed to have read the bulk of the mails themselves.
Plenty of people have shown the conclusions reached by the pet climate "scientists" to be based upon falsified data, manipulated data, and basic research methodology flaws.
These people have published papers on the subject. The reaction was to "redefine the meaning of peer review."
The Met office can conclude one thing from their data (and they are likely to support any conclusion that reels in the grant money) and other people have concluded that the Met is full of shit.
The most telling thing is the slander "skeptic" that is bandied about these days. Isn't every scientist a skeptic? We're talking science here, not religion. Or are we?
Right, and people said the same thing about smartphones in the 2000s!
You've got to have something better than this.
Sigh. Hum. /kicks clod of dirt.
Of course you can't argue with it. I never implied a vast conspiracy, though. It's pretty clear from the Climategate mails that there are less than a dozen individuals involved in the data faking regime.
Everybody knows who they are at this point.
Anyway, I'm not inciting anything, but just offering some insight as to how the general public will eventually deal with people who subvert science to push their political agendas at the expense of the public.
The kind of conspiracy I am contemplating is very, very evident if you read the Climategate mails. They are very open and honest in private about their plans.
Please, pray tell, explain to me the context of "redefine the meaning of peer review." I could always use a good laugh!
This is a pretty standard slander and would probably work with the audience if I was advocating some other position than skepticism of any "science" crafted by shysters.
Wow, a government supported office interested in reinforcing the government's pet conclusions sent a LETTER to a person!
Wow, you're gullible.
You see though, it's not "science" when the data is made up and then destroyed. It's undercover political activism. This much is clear if you read the Climategate mails.
When you attempt to subvert the system and then have the audacity to call the general public morons for not buying into a faked science, they have a right to be angry. Maybe they even kill you. To me, this is just amusing and it should be a lesson to future Communistic scientists who think they have the right to deceive everybody in order to push their agenda at the taxpayers' expense.
In any event, "science" is mainly just a tool to confirm the plans that have been in place at higher levels for decades.
It'll be Kin all over again. I doubt they give RT until Christmas before pulling the plug and having to apologize to their victims (AKA "partners).
If you work in security then I feel very sorry for your employers and customers.
Are you really naive enough to believe that deep surveillance on Australia's communications infrastructure is NOT in the ChiCom's interest?
It's telling that you have to rely upon strawmen to make your point. Very, very telling. Perhaps the ASIO should take a closer look at you and your "security" business.
So, it's clear that you haven't read any of the mails then.
I find it ironic that the Commun^H^H^H^H^H^H Democrats don't receive your scorn too.
If tablets are a fad, how is it possible that Apple sold more iPads in the last quarter than PC manufacturers sold PCs?
Yeah, that's what I thought.
Reading the original mails is exactly what brought many people to conclude that the whole discipline is full of shit.
I'd like to hear your explanation of what is *really* meant by "redefine the meaning of peer review."
No, really, I'm sure it's completely innocent, right?
Wow, you're just really naive. Really, really naive.
Even without decrypting the information all the way back in WWII, traffic analysis allowed some major victories on the battlefield. With this technique, being automated and in near real time, one could infer a lot about an adversary without actually decrypting one single thing.
Maybe you're not concerned with privacy, but that's why you're not working in this field!
The difference between a processor and a fully integrated SOC is apparently lost on you.
Hint, one requires a lot of motherboard infrastructure, all of which draws more power, and requires a larger sized device.
The other's essentially a whole computer on one chip, requires less power, and is a much smaller package.
The $19 Atom still needs a whole chipset, motherboard, etc, all of which costs money. The ARM just needs pinouts to the peripherals and expansion ports.
And this is why nobody takes you seriously. Go back to calling people fat on the XBox.
See you can't blame people for not getting the branding straight. Personally I can't be assed to even care enough to worry about what the names really are, despite my ability to learn these things if I really wanted. The excruciating minutia of Microsoft's marketing terms of art are just not worth my time.
So, ultimately, I would counter your claim and say that people have every excuse for getting it wrong.
What I understand is that there's an ARM Windows, on the tablet side, an Intel Windows on the tablet side, a PC Windows, and a phone Windows all of which have some sort of 8 in the name, excepting the tablet one which you say has no "8" in it, but I have read that it is a Windows 8 product before. Maybe you can chalk it up to a journalist being confused, or whatnot, but ultimately it's just a gigantic clusterfuck any way you look at it.
ARM doesn't need better performance in an age when most devices are only using a fraction of their capabilities anyway. It is sufficient to beat Intel on power consumption alone.
Unfortunately, I believe that since only Samsung knows how many activations there were that the data points the analyst was likely to have derived his conclusions from come from certain spyware type analytics programs, and surveys.
Explaining that there's no Windows 8 Phone, but that it's really Windows Phone 8, and that Windows 8 tablet is different from Windows RT 8 or whatever, to an average consumer, would probably be a more effective way to get their head to literally explode than anything you saw in the classic movie Scanners.
This is ultimately what's being discussed here.
"a laptop's display is probably the worst power drain, especially with a Retina display."
The majority of power used in a modern display is consumed in lighting the thing, not switching pixels.
It's true - since fall started, I kept the door in my office room closed and the heat off. The only thing running in here is a Mac Mini and it heats the room to a comfortable 66Â just doing household media center type duties.
To be fair, it's more cost effective per BTU than a space heater.