Since broadcasting is pretty much a Federal power in Canada, I'm not sure, whatever the other flaws in Ontario's plans, whether they even have the constitutional right to do it.
In modern operating systems, the differences are in optimizations. A desktop might want to have more ticks dedicated towards foreground GUI apps (though I'm not even sure that matters is the age of multicore processors with gigs of RAM), whereas a server might want to dedicate more resources to I/O. But in most cases, at least with any software and Linux distro I've seen in the last decade, much of that can be accomplished by altering kernel and daemon parameters.
Windows does the same thing. The base kernel for Windows 8 and Server 2012 is the same; and it's licensing-triggered settings that determine specific behaviors. In an age of cheap storage costs, cheap RAM and fast processors, why in the hell would you want to ship multiple kernels/ What possible advantage would it gain, when you can just simply determine, either as an administrator, or based on licensing, the fine tuning of kernel parameters?
So many of the kernel's functions and optimizations can be altered now, there strikes me as no reason to ship entirely different kernels. Who does that any more? Even Windows kernels are largely the same, with optimizations triggered either by the registry or by the edition.
Christ, your position is little better than nilihism. Accepting, for instance, that several languages spoken in Eurasia are descended from a proto-Indo European language is not an article of faith, even if I don't have the linguistics skills to evaluate every single language that sits within that grouping.
What's needed is moving away from energy produced by fossil fuels. I'm asking all you who seem to reject AGW because the solutions, in your view, are "authoritarian", how you will deal with it? So, what tools would you bring to bear?
Because climatologists have never thought of looking at climate history...
The ignorance and arrogance in your poster is awe-inspiring. It's as if you have no fucking idea what climatologists base their theories on, and yet have decided they are wrong.
There wasn't a learned man in Europe who believed the Earth was flat. It may have persisted much longer in China, but in Europe and among Arab geographers, there was no one who seriously believed in the flat Earth. The Greeks had figured that out nearly 2000 years before Columbus ever accidentally ran into the Americas on his way to China.
And yet no one believes in phlogiston anymore. Science did what it was supposed to do.
I can think of plenty of examples of the old guard trying to hang on to discredited ideas. The Out of Africa theory of human origins, when it first came out, flew in the face of a general view among European experts that modern humanity had evolved in Eurasia. The old guard, to some extent, were more informed by racial biases (the very 16th-19th century idea that sub-Saharan Africans were somehow lower on the evolutionary chain), and indeed there were a few angry bastards, notably on the Continent, that clung to the idea of a Eurasian origin of H. sapiens even into the 1980s, when finally enough molecular data had been gained both from extant human populations and from the remains of ancient humans (including Neanderthals) that it became irrefutable that modern H. sapiens had a very recent origin (sometime between 200,000 and 150,000 years ago) in Africa.
And again, on the same general topic, for a long time the idea that modern humans and Neanderthals had interbred was viewed as completely invalid. mtDNA studies were flung in the faces of researchers who insisted that modern humans and Neanderthals had interbred in Eurasia. Those that insisted that the interbreeding had happened were tut-tutted, in some cases viewed almost as hippies. Indeed, even into the 1990s, the "consensus" view was that any interbreeding was so rare as to have had no impact on the genetic makeup of modern human populations.
Well, lo and behold, by the 21st century, better techniques for DNA extraction and genome mapping revealed that virtually all human populations outside of sub-Saharan Africa did have nuclear genes that came from Neanderthals.
So it strikes me that this, and numerous other examples, consensus that does not fit the evidence is always ultimately discarded. But that some consensus views are wrong does not mean all consensus views are wrong.
But you can't just simply ignore a whole body of work and go your own way. Despite the romantic notion that science is a series of bold new discoveries toppling old paradigms is largely bullshit. Yes, it may have happened on occasion, but for the most part, science is the steady building of knowledge, not the wholesale throwing out of old ideas. Take a truly revolutionary theory like General Relativity. Even Einstein was building on a body of knowledge developed by people like Maxwell and Lorentz, and he would have been the first to admit the debts he owed to his predecessors. In much the same way, quantum mechanics owes a great debt to Einstein, via his work on the photoelectric effect.
Providing it is understood, and I have to talk to a scientist who didn't believe this, that consensus is provisional, how is consensus bad?
First of all, I think you're just playing a hyperbolic game here. I don't know of any researcher who says "we need more authoritarianism".
But let's play a little game. Let's just say AGW is real, and there is time to reduce emissions sufficiently that some of the worst effects could be eliminated, or at least reduced. How would you go about reducing emissions?
I'll be very clear here, because I think this needs constant restating. Nature doesn't care about your ideology. The laws of physics cannot be altered because your philosophical, ideological and political beliefs run counter to them. If CO2, methane and other greenhouse gas emissions are increasing temperatures and altering the climate in a very short (geological) period of time, then it's happening, regardless of what your political slant would suggest.
The whole idea that science should be evaluated on anyone's ideology is madness.
An appeal to authority is not necessarily fallacious (that would be fallacious reasoning itself). If the authorities in question are generally recognized as actual authorities, then surely it does not follow that accepting, even provisionally, what they say is fallacious.
Look at it this way. The number of people that can actually work in physics, particularly in areas like QM and General Relativity, is by and large very small. Most people simply do not have the training in mathematics and theory to be able to understand anything but a laymans' approximations of the science.
So when you have an expert in the field who makes a statement about, say, the Inflationary Epoch of Big Bang cosmology, and that statement is in general accord with what other experts in the field say, then I'd say you're probably getting a statement that is a reflection of the science as it is at the time. It is not 100% reliable, but the whole nature of science as a discipline has the notion that 100% reliability is not achievable, so there is still plenty of room for new ideas.
I think that's far too narrow a definition of science, one that seems far too ideal to be useful.
Is string theory science? After all, there's virtually no way to test it with any technology we currently possess, and it may be decades before we possess the equipment necessary to actually test its predictions.
I'd say the answer is yes, it is science. It may be wrongheaded and may ultimately end up being wrong (though the mathematics that have had to be produced to explain string theory have had some benefits in others areas of research, so in science, even failures lead to advances). Even the most ardent string theorists will admit, when pushed, that at the moment, strings remain a theory without experimental evidence, so it's not like they're deluding themselves into believing they have TRUTH.
In fact, that, to my mind, is what makes science more than any other philosophical statement; and that is that there is no TRUTH with a capital T, but rather provisional facts that are open to change at any time. Some theories may have sufficient explanatory power and evidence backing them that they might as well be considered true (ie. biological evolution, general relativity), but even in such cases, there's usually aspects that are incomplete, so even within well-established theories, there's always room for improvement. In some cases, such theories may ultimately be subsumed into larger theories (as happened with Newtonian Mechanics). I fully expect that Relativity and Quantum Mechanics will themselves ultimately be unified as part of a larger theory (maybe it will even be string theory, so one hopes that those researchers keep going, even if by the Chrichton formula, they're apparently not doing science at all).
Compared to other scripting languages (I'm thinking Bash, Python, heck even Perl), yeah, Powershell kind of sucks. But compared to the incredible hacks that had to be used a decade ago to do scripting on Windows servers, it's a 1000% improvement. But, at the end of the day, it has to be one of the worst scripting languages I've ever used.
Apart from anything else, what I truly dislike about Powershell is how verbose it is. Perhaps it's my *nix heritage, but I like tidy little mnemonic commands like "mv", "rm" or "grep". Less typing, less things to wrong when you're writing scripts. I also find the syntax rather awkward. It's far better than the alternatives (like vbscript or jscript with WMI), but it's still a long ways away from what I would consider a decent scripting language.
Actually, the worst part of about Powershell is how awfully slow it is. I'm sure that is because it's basically an interface sitting on top of.NET. The *nix shells are, for the most part, self-contained binaries, so bringing up a Bash script is very fast. But then again, sh and its descendants aren't trying to create a "do it all" environment, but rather create control structures and variables to expand upon existing *nix commands.
I wrote a Powershell scriptlet a few months ago to dump Exchange 2010 mailboxes based on some criteria. Works like a charm, and like I said, despite my dislike of Powershell itself, I'm very grateful that it exists. But loading the Exchange scriptlets library takes something 10 to 20 seconds, and you can see Powershell nailing system resources like crazy to get to that point.
While its roots, or at least its inspiration, are the Unix shells, in very important ways, it ignores key Unix principles. It is indeed what Bash would work like if it had been written by Microsoft.
TCP/IP has the singular advantage that it is deeply entrenched, runs on a vast number of devices from supercomputers right down to single-chip computers. Is it perfect? Absolutely not, but it's a proven technology.
I'm sure in the fullness of time it will be replaced, or at least subsumed into some better protocol, and maybe this initiative will be the one that produces its successor... or not. I think TCP/IP is going to be with us for a very long time.
In other words, there is no verifying the claims. It strikes me as being irresponsible to the point of being outright of defamatory to continue to repeat these sorts of claims where no actual evidence to their veracity can be produced.
I'm asking for an actual citation demonstrating the claim that she slept with people for favorable reviews. Does such a verifiable citation exist or not?
Slashdot Mirror
Since broadcasting is pretty much a Federal power in Canada, I'm not sure, whatever the other flaws in Ontario's plans, whether they even have the constitutional right to do it.
In modern operating systems, the differences are in optimizations. A desktop might want to have more ticks dedicated towards foreground GUI apps (though I'm not even sure that matters is the age of multicore processors with gigs of RAM), whereas a server might want to dedicate more resources to I/O. But in most cases, at least with any software and Linux distro I've seen in the last decade, much of that can be accomplished by altering kernel and daemon parameters.
Windows does the same thing. The base kernel for Windows 8 and Server 2012 is the same; and it's licensing-triggered settings that determine specific behaviors. In an age of cheap storage costs, cheap RAM and fast processors, why in the hell would you want to ship multiple kernels/ What possible advantage would it gain, when you can just simply determine, either as an administrator, or based on licensing, the fine tuning of kernel parameters?
So many of the kernel's functions and optimizations can be altered now, there strikes me as no reason to ship entirely different kernels. Who does that any more? Even Windows kernels are largely the same, with optimizations triggered either by the registry or by the edition.
And your understanding is based exactly on what?
Christ, your position is little better than nilihism. Accepting, for instance, that several languages spoken in Eurasia are descended from a proto-Indo European language is not an article of faith, even if I don't have the linguistics skills to evaluate every single language that sits within that grouping.
You have any citations that aren't from lunatics?
What's needed is moving away from energy produced by fossil fuels. I'm asking all you who seem to reject AGW because the solutions, in your view, are "authoritarian", how you will deal with it? So, what tools would you bring to bear?
Because climatologists have never thought of looking at climate history...
The ignorance and arrogance in your poster is awe-inspiring. It's as if you have no fucking idea what climatologists base their theories on, and yet have decided they are wrong.
There wasn't a learned man in Europe who believed the Earth was flat. It may have persisted much longer in China, but in Europe and among Arab geographers, there was no one who seriously believed in the flat Earth. The Greeks had figured that out nearly 2000 years before Columbus ever accidentally ran into the Americas on his way to China.
Picking the "20 years of no warming" is simply cherry picking, and ignoring a time period 15 times longer that does show warming.
Ah yes, when your ideology runs up against science, invent cabals of evil scientists trying to fuck you over.
How are you any different than a Creationist?
And yet no one believes in phlogiston anymore. Science did what it was supposed to do.
I can think of plenty of examples of the old guard trying to hang on to discredited ideas. The Out of Africa theory of human origins, when it first came out, flew in the face of a general view among European experts that modern humanity had evolved in Eurasia. The old guard, to some extent, were more informed by racial biases (the very 16th-19th century idea that sub-Saharan Africans were somehow lower on the evolutionary chain), and indeed there were a few angry bastards, notably on the Continent, that clung to the idea of a Eurasian origin of H. sapiens even into the 1980s, when finally enough molecular data had been gained both from extant human populations and from the remains of ancient humans (including Neanderthals) that it became irrefutable that modern H. sapiens had a very recent origin (sometime between 200,000 and 150,000 years ago) in Africa.
And again, on the same general topic, for a long time the idea that modern humans and Neanderthals had interbred was viewed as completely invalid. mtDNA studies were flung in the faces of researchers who insisted that modern humans and Neanderthals had interbred in Eurasia. Those that insisted that the interbreeding had happened were tut-tutted, in some cases viewed almost as hippies. Indeed, even into the 1990s, the "consensus" view was that any interbreeding was so rare as to have had no impact on the genetic makeup of modern human populations.
Well, lo and behold, by the 21st century, better techniques for DNA extraction and genome mapping revealed that virtually all human populations outside of sub-Saharan Africa did have nuclear genes that came from Neanderthals.
So it strikes me that this, and numerous other examples, consensus that does not fit the evidence is always ultimately discarded. But that some consensus views are wrong does not mean all consensus views are wrong.
But you can't just simply ignore a whole body of work and go your own way. Despite the romantic notion that science is a series of bold new discoveries toppling old paradigms is largely bullshit. Yes, it may have happened on occasion, but for the most part, science is the steady building of knowledge, not the wholesale throwing out of old ideas. Take a truly revolutionary theory like General Relativity. Even Einstein was building on a body of knowledge developed by people like Maxwell and Lorentz, and he would have been the first to admit the debts he owed to his predecessors. In much the same way, quantum mechanics owes a great debt to Einstein, via his work on the photoelectric effect.
Providing it is understood, and I have to talk to a scientist who didn't believe this, that consensus is provisional, how is consensus bad?
First of all, I think you're just playing a hyperbolic game here. I don't know of any researcher who says "we need more authoritarianism".
But let's play a little game. Let's just say AGW is real, and there is time to reduce emissions sufficiently that some of the worst effects could be eliminated, or at least reduced. How would you go about reducing emissions?
I'll be very clear here, because I think this needs constant restating. Nature doesn't care about your ideology. The laws of physics cannot be altered because your philosophical, ideological and political beliefs run counter to them. If CO2, methane and other greenhouse gas emissions are increasing temperatures and altering the climate in a very short (geological) period of time, then it's happening, regardless of what your political slant would suggest.
The whole idea that science should be evaluated on anyone's ideology is madness.
An appeal to authority is not necessarily fallacious (that would be fallacious reasoning itself). If the authorities in question are generally recognized as actual authorities, then surely it does not follow that accepting, even provisionally, what they say is fallacious.
Look at it this way. The number of people that can actually work in physics, particularly in areas like QM and General Relativity, is by and large very small. Most people simply do not have the training in mathematics and theory to be able to understand anything but a laymans' approximations of the science.
So when you have an expert in the field who makes a statement about, say, the Inflationary Epoch of Big Bang cosmology, and that statement is in general accord with what other experts in the field say, then I'd say you're probably getting a statement that is a reflection of the science as it is at the time. It is not 100% reliable, but the whole nature of science as a discipline has the notion that 100% reliability is not achievable, so there is still plenty of room for new ideas.
I think that's far too narrow a definition of science, one that seems far too ideal to be useful.
Is string theory science? After all, there's virtually no way to test it with any technology we currently possess, and it may be decades before we possess the equipment necessary to actually test its predictions.
I'd say the answer is yes, it is science. It may be wrongheaded and may ultimately end up being wrong (though the mathematics that have had to be produced to explain string theory have had some benefits in others areas of research, so in science, even failures lead to advances). Even the most ardent string theorists will admit, when pushed, that at the moment, strings remain a theory without experimental evidence, so it's not like they're deluding themselves into believing they have TRUTH.
In fact, that, to my mind, is what makes science more than any other philosophical statement; and that is that there is no TRUTH with a capital T, but rather provisional facts that are open to change at any time. Some theories may have sufficient explanatory power and evidence backing them that they might as well be considered true (ie. biological evolution, general relativity), but even in such cases, there's usually aspects that are incomplete, so even within well-established theories, there's always room for improvement. In some cases, such theories may ultimately be subsumed into larger theories (as happened with Newtonian Mechanics). I fully expect that Relativity and Quantum Mechanics will themselves ultimately be unified as part of a larger theory (maybe it will even be string theory, so one hopes that those researchers keep going, even if by the Chrichton formula, they're apparently not doing science at all).
Compared to other scripting languages (I'm thinking Bash, Python, heck even Perl), yeah, Powershell kind of sucks. But compared to the incredible hacks that had to be used a decade ago to do scripting on Windows servers, it's a 1000% improvement. But, at the end of the day, it has to be one of the worst scripting languages I've ever used.
Apart from anything else, what I truly dislike about Powershell is how verbose it is. Perhaps it's my *nix heritage, but I like tidy little mnemonic commands like "mv", "rm" or "grep". Less typing, less things to wrong when you're writing scripts. I also find the syntax rather awkward. It's far better than the alternatives (like vbscript or jscript with WMI), but it's still a long ways away from what I would consider a decent scripting language.
Actually, the worst part of about Powershell is how awfully slow it is. I'm sure that is because it's basically an interface sitting on top of .NET. The *nix shells are, for the most part, self-contained binaries, so bringing up a Bash script is very fast. But then again, sh and its descendants aren't trying to create a "do it all" environment, but rather create control structures and variables to expand upon existing *nix commands.
I wrote a Powershell scriptlet a few months ago to dump Exchange 2010 mailboxes based on some criteria. Works like a charm, and like I said, despite my dislike of Powershell itself, I'm very grateful that it exists. But loading the Exchange scriptlets library takes something 10 to 20 seconds, and you can see Powershell nailing system resources like crazy to get to that point.
While its roots, or at least its inspiration, are the Unix shells, in very important ways, it ignores key Unix principles. It is indeed what Bash would work like if it had been written by Microsoft.
Powershell is just enough like Bash to make me groan after ten minutes and ask "Why the f--- didn't they just make an integrated Bash shell?"
"New" as in "newly discovered"....
TCP/IP has the singular advantage that it is deeply entrenched, runs on a vast number of devices from supercomputers right down to single-chip computers. Is it perfect? Absolutely not, but it's a proven technology.
I'm sure in the fullness of time it will be replaced, or at least subsumed into some better protocol, and maybe this initiative will be the one that produces its successor... or not. I think TCP/IP is going to be with us for a very long time.
Can you provide some evidence that they were sleeping together?
What proof? Be specific. Show me the actual proof.
And no, a favorable review is not evidence of sexual favors.
In other words, there is no verifying the claims. It strikes me as being irresponsible to the point of being outright of defamatory to continue to repeat these sorts of claims where no actual evidence to their veracity can be produced.
I'm asking for an actual citation demonstrating the claim that she slept with people for favorable reviews. Does such a verifiable citation exist or not?