This is such a typical do nothing, patch nothing, PR-only marketing beta, NOT an actual beta test.
Do you even understand what a beta is? It's a feature-complete build that has known issues. It's not a demo, nor a "You get to play for free" build. It's BETA. B-E-T-A. I.e., understood to be broken.
The printer division, however, accounts for just short of 50% of the total profits (a bit over $1 billion in Q2 2009). There are two sections that make the profits at HP: services and printers. The Personal Systems Group - the group that Fiorina tried to bolster through the acquisition of Compaq - was about 1/3 of either the Printer and Imaging or the Services group. And the Services group is that large only because of HPs recent acquisitions of EDS and Mercury Interactive.
So yes, HP is basically printers and imaging equipment. The rest has either been bought recently, or is providing pocket change.
To some extent, it's impressive. McBride has figured out that as a CEO, he doesn't need a product, and he doesn't even need a legal theory to stay employed. All he needs is to stay in court for as long as possible, and he has access to whatever money is in SCO's name. If Thompson is any indication it'll be about 5-6 years before he even the most insulting filings won't give him a judge's ear anymore. It's really quite impressive, and a nice gig if you have the stomach for it. I'm pretty sure his days consist of telling his lawyers "I don't care how stupid it is, file another complaint, objection or legal brief." and going golfing.
Technically, any decision that is supported by less than 100% of the population in question is an illegitimate decision that is closer to tyranny than participatory democracy.
And since even the constitution can be amended with a sufficient number of ayes, tyranny of the majority is a way of life in modern democracies. The alternative is a tyranny of the minority.
Then in the 80's it was the hole in the ozone layer
Yes, just like the Y2k problem was a non-issue and should have been completely ignored. I mean, the amount of money spent fixing either issue is completely irrelevant when talking about what its impact was going to be without that money.
Now it's global warming.
The AGC debate has nothing to do with any of the issues you mentioned so far.
And they wonder why some of us are so skeptical.
I don't wonder. I'm pretty sure it has all to do with confirmation bias and an inability to read original sources.
The fact that no one would return to a grocery story that consistently served spoiled food, keeps that from happening. The fact that no one wants to live in a horrible apartment, keeps the apartments nice.
Unless, of course, you were working at Walmart in Mexico prior to 2008, or in mining and logging towns in the 19th century. You might want to look up the concepts of company towns and scrip.
Obviously, I bow down to your superior intellect.
I don't know about your intellect, but your knowledge seems to be a bit lacking.
All net neutrality does is keep a small handful of companies from turning the Internet into TV.
Unfortunately, I share your position on this. It is exactly why I love net neutrality, and why the telecoms sponsoring these white papers hate it. I am convinced that the best years of the Internet are behind it... I'd love to be wrong on that, but somehow doubt it.
So how exactly would passing a law that basically codifies current practices cause job loss?
Not to mention that it isn't even job loss that they're talking about. They're merely speculating that growth will be 15% less than without regulation - and somehow, that translates into 300000 jobs that will not be created.
Can we please, please stop talking about not getting what you think you should get as being the same as a loss or theft? Because if we're going to go down that route, I'm gonna argue that a lack of net neutrality regulation will cost me 2.74 gazillion dollars, and sue the Federal Government for that amount.
Then again, we're talking about lobbyists here. If the money is right, they'll argue that cigarette smoke freshens your breath and turns babies into geniuses.
So what about the people in the seventies who were already talking about an impending global warming crisis? You know, the ones who were valiantly working against the popular misconception that global cooling was a real danger? By the way, there was sarcasm in there. I'll let you figure out which part was sarcasm.
Accusing someone of bias is the easiest way to stop an argument, because everyone is biased in some way. Furthermore, there is a big, fat difference in being paid out of a giant pool of money that goes for studying the mating habits of dung beetles and whether ice cores can be used to measure temperatures from 200000 years ago, and getting paid by a corporation whose bottom line depends on the outcome of the study. Equating the two is disingenuous.
Is the research from big oil regarding climate change automatically wrong. No. But if it just so happens that the outcome of the study is the one that supports the companies bottom line, I'm going to look a) very carefully at how it arrived at that conclusion, and b) compare it with the conclusions from people who aren't affiliated with said company.
If you want to flame, at least be on-topic. Where was I talking about something that happened 70 years ago? Where was I talking about what NASA said? This is about Phil Jones. Pay attention.
The Null Hypothesis is that what's happening is natural.
Sigh. No. The Null hypothesis is that all the data that has been collected is the result of random processes and therefore indistinguishable from random noise.. Trying to make any other claim with any collected data needs theoretical and data support.
I'm starting to understand why people can't get their head around the data that's been collected.
Look up ice cores. I'm kinda frightened by the fact that you're making inferences about climate science without being even aware of one of the major ways that people are getting temperature data.
What are you talking about? Are you saying radioactive decay is calculated by using a computer model using hundreds of poorly understood variables (with hundreds, if not thousands of "unknown unknowns"), with very little verification -- similar to climatology science?
Pretty much. Have you ever tried working out the math for just the hydrogen orbit? Now try working out the math for a nice, simple alpha-decay. For one particle.
As for whether climatology is as accurate as physics.... no. No one claims that. I'll give you another analogy though. I'm gonna flip a coin. Heads or tails? Getting it right is going to be pretty much a crapshot. You can try and calculate it, but good luck with that. However, if I ask you how many heads there'll be after 1000 coins flips, and ask you for only a 95% confidence interval - what's it gonna be? And how sure would you be of your answer?
Just because something isn't provably correct doesn't mean it isn't useful. Or do you not use any software that isn't provably correct?
You mean the incorrect info that was discovered by other climatologists, and corrected by those other climatologists? That one? Which showed science in action? Tell me again how that demonstrates what's wrong about all those climate change alarmists?
I have come to this conclusion seeing comments in computer code describing efforts to hide the decline and seen exaggerated claims of Himalayan glacier melt to spur politicians into action.
Then you have seen about 0.000001% of the code used in Global Climate models, and none of the peer-reviewed papers that deal with Global Climate Change.
It is therefore not science in any sense that trillions of dollars should be spent based upon analysis of said cleaned and scrubbed data.
All data is always scrubbed and cleaned, because you never, ever deal with raw data. At the very least, you normalize it and throw out data points from faulty measurements.
And that's why I don't think that releasing the raw data behind all the work that's been done so far is going to accomplish any good. Because few people understand what goes into the scientific analysis of a data set.
True, on its own, data should be made available. Information that circulates increases in value.
But I think we should be aware that it is easy to abuse data, and there are currently a lot of people out there who are very keen on abusing specific data sets. That decreases the value of data.
Anybody alive during the 70's should also remember a distinct similarity between the vehement AGW campaign and what was then a vehement AGC (Anthropogenic Global Cooling) campaign.
I really would like to see a quote for that. Just one. Cuz when I was alive in the 70s, we were already talking about Global Warming.
For example, my company has the technology to cure AIDS, but we can't get the time of day from any granting agencies, because they will only fund vaccine research.
Either your execs are lying to you, or are incompetent at marketing. Any drug company would pay through the nose to get a look at a guaranteed cure for AIDS.
Which is more likely: getting a grant to disprove global warming, or getting a grant to produce evidence of global warming?
Depends on who you talk to. Grants for research aimed at investigating evidence for AGW would come from the government or private outfits like the Sierra Club. Budget of NSF: $6 billion. Budget of EPA: $10 billion. Budget of Sierra Club: $100 million
Grants for research aimed at investigating evidence against AGW would come from Big Oil or Big Coal. Profit of Exxon in the last quarter: $6 billion. Profit in 2009 of random coal company in China, Datong: $200 million.
If I wanted grant money to make a living, I would know exactly who I would talk to. And it isn't the NSF or the Sierra Club.
And, oh yes, the person at the center of the CRU meltdown, Phil Jones, now admits there has been NO GLOBAL WARMING FOR THE PAST 15 YEARS.
Are you still on that? You might want to at least link to the actual interview where that quote is supposedly coming from, which is here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm
And here is the relevant quote in question:
Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
Quite a bit of a difference from what you and that ncpa article are claiming, isn't it? Like always, it pays to go to the source itself. Unless, of course, you have no interest in what's actually happening, and are merely interested in finding your present ideas confirmed.
This problem has several paid solutions, all of which work fairly well, and make maintaining a data center the job of one person, instead of 20 people looking at a spreadsheet and log files. I haven't found an open-source package that is nearly as competent as the integrated solutions offered by HP, IBM and others. Warning: sticker-shock is included. Bonus: PHBs like looking at pretty pictures, and all the commercial tracking software produces pretty pictures. Your PHB looks like a super-hero to his PHBs, and you become an invaluable asset to your PHB for making him look good.
Slashdot Mirror
This is such a typical do nothing, patch nothing, PR-only marketing beta, NOT an actual beta test.
Do you even understand what a beta is? It's a feature-complete build that has known issues. It's not a demo, nor a "You get to play for free" build. It's BETA. B-E-T-A. I.e., understood to be broken.
Sheesh. Kids today.
The printer division, however, accounts for just short of 50% of the total profits (a bit over $1 billion in Q2 2009). There are two sections that make the profits at HP: services and printers. The Personal Systems Group - the group that Fiorina tried to bolster through the acquisition of Compaq - was about 1/3 of either the Printer and Imaging or the Services group. And the Services group is that large only because of HPs recent acquisitions of EDS and Mercury Interactive.
So yes, HP is basically printers and imaging equipment. The rest has either been bought recently, or is providing pocket change.
This thing just won't die.
To some extent, it's impressive. McBride has figured out that as a CEO, he doesn't need a product, and he doesn't even need a legal theory to stay employed. All he needs is to stay in court for as long as possible, and he has access to whatever money is in SCO's name. If Thompson is any indication it'll be about 5-6 years before he even the most insulting filings won't give him a judge's ear anymore. It's really quite impressive, and a nice gig if you have the stomach for it. I'm pretty sure his days consist of telling his lawyers "I don't care how stupid it is, file another complaint, objection or legal brief." and going golfing.
Technically, any decision that is supported by less than 100% of the population in question is an illegitimate decision that is closer to tyranny than participatory democracy.
And since even the constitution can be amended with a sufficient number of ayes, tyranny of the majority is a way of life in modern democracies. The alternative is a tyranny of the minority.
Since I apparently have a black and white view of politics, I'm vastly interested in what you think those are.
The really tragic fact about Greens, is that they're stupid.
I don't know what else to tell you than that generalizations like the one you made are the definition of black and white thinking.
In the 60's the hippies told us overpopulation would kill us.
Where is the peer-reviewed paper by those hippies? Please stay on-topic.
Then in the 70's it was global cooling.
Wrong.Always has been, always will be.
Then in the 80's it was the hole in the ozone layer
Yes, just like the Y2k problem was a non-issue and should have been completely ignored. I mean, the amount of money spent fixing either issue is completely irrelevant when talking about what its impact was going to be without that money.
Now it's global warming.
The AGC debate has nothing to do with any of the issues you mentioned so far.
And they wonder why some of us are so skeptical.
I don't wonder. I'm pretty sure it has all to do with confirmation bias and an inability to read original sources.
The fact that no one would return to a grocery story that consistently served spoiled food, keeps that from happening. The fact that no one wants to live in a horrible apartment, keeps the apartments nice.
Unless, of course, you were working at Walmart in Mexico prior to 2008, or in mining and logging towns in the 19th century. You might want to look up the concepts of company towns and scrip.
Obviously, I bow down to your superior intellect.
I don't know about your intellect, but your knowledge seems to be a bit lacking.
All net neutrality does is keep a small handful of companies from turning the Internet into TV.
Unfortunately, I share your position on this. It is exactly why I love net neutrality, and why the telecoms sponsoring these white papers hate it. I am convinced that the best years of the Internet are behind it... I'd love to be wrong on that, but somehow doubt it.
So how exactly would passing a law that basically codifies current practices cause job loss?
Not to mention that it isn't even job loss that they're talking about. They're merely speculating that growth will be 15% less than without regulation - and somehow, that translates into 300000 jobs that will not be created.
Can we please, please stop talking about not getting what you think you should get as being the same as a loss or theft? Because if we're going to go down that route, I'm gonna argue that a lack of net neutrality regulation will cost me 2.74 gazillion dollars, and sue the Federal Government for that amount.
Then again, we're talking about lobbyists here. If the money is right, they'll argue that cigarette smoke freshens your breath and turns babies into geniuses.
So what about the people in the seventies who were already talking about an impending global warming crisis? You know, the ones who were valiantly working against the popular misconception that global cooling was a real danger? By the way, there was sarcasm in there. I'll let you figure out which part was sarcasm.
Accusing someone of bias is the easiest way to stop an argument, because everyone is biased in some way. Furthermore, there is a big, fat difference in being paid out of a giant pool of money that goes for studying the mating habits of dung beetles and whether ice cores can be used to measure temperatures from 200000 years ago, and getting paid by a corporation whose bottom line depends on the outcome of the study. Equating the two is disingenuous.
Is the research from big oil regarding climate change automatically wrong. No. But if it just so happens that the outcome of the study is the one that supports the companies bottom line, I'm going to look a) very carefully at how it arrived at that conclusion, and b) compare it with the conclusions from people who aren't affiliated with said company.
Thank you. At least there's some paper I can link to if this gets pulled out again.
If you want to flame, at least be on-topic. Where was I talking about something that happened 70 years ago? Where was I talking about what NASA said? This is about Phil Jones. Pay attention.
Not to mention that CH4 stays in the atmosphere for about 2 weeks or so. If you stop putting it into the atmosphere, it disappears pretty quickly.
The Null Hypothesis is that what's happening is natural.
Sigh. No. The Null hypothesis is that all the data that has been collected is the result of random processes and therefore indistinguishable from random noise.. Trying to make any other claim with any collected data needs theoretical and data support.
I'm starting to understand why people can't get their head around the data that's been collected.
Look up ice cores. I'm kinda frightened by the fact that you're making inferences about climate science without being even aware of one of the major ways that people are getting temperature data.
What are you talking about? Are you saying radioactive decay is calculated by using a computer model using hundreds of poorly understood variables (with hundreds, if not thousands of "unknown unknowns"), with very little verification -- similar to climatology science?
Pretty much. Have you ever tried working out the math for just the hydrogen orbit? Now try working out the math for a nice, simple alpha-decay. For one particle.
As for whether climatology is as accurate as physics.... no. No one claims that. I'll give you another analogy though. I'm gonna flip a coin. Heads or tails? Getting it right is going to be pretty much a crapshot. You can try and calculate it, but good luck with that. However, if I ask you how many heads there'll be after 1000 coins flips, and ask you for only a 95% confidence interval - what's it gonna be? And how sure would you be of your answer?
Just because something isn't provably correct doesn't mean it isn't useful. Or do you not use any software that isn't provably correct?
You mean the incorrect info that was discovered by other climatologists, and corrected by those other climatologists? That one? Which showed science in action? Tell me again how that demonstrates what's wrong about all those climate change alarmists?
I have come to this conclusion seeing comments in computer code describing efforts to hide the decline and seen exaggerated claims of Himalayan glacier melt to spur politicians into action.
Then you have seen about 0.000001% of the code used in Global Climate models, and none of the peer-reviewed papers that deal with Global Climate Change.
It is therefore not science in any sense that trillions of dollars should be spent based upon analysis of said cleaned and scrubbed data.
All data is always scrubbed and cleaned, because you never, ever deal with raw data. At the very least, you normalize it and throw out data points from faulty measurements.
And that's why I don't think that releasing the raw data behind all the work that's been done so far is going to accomplish any good. Because few people understand what goes into the scientific analysis of a data set.
True, on its own, data should be made available. Information that circulates increases in value.
But I think we should be aware that it is easy to abuse data, and there are currently a lot of people out there who are very keen on abusing specific data sets. That decreases the value of data.
Anybody alive during the 70's should also remember a distinct similarity between the vehement AGW campaign and what was then a vehement AGC (Anthropogenic Global Cooling) campaign.
I really would like to see a quote for that. Just one. Cuz when I was alive in the 70s, we were already talking about Global Warming.
For example, my company has the technology to cure AIDS, but we can't get the time of day from any granting agencies, because they will only fund vaccine research.
Either your execs are lying to you, or are incompetent at marketing. Any drug company would pay through the nose to get a look at a guaranteed cure for AIDS.
Which is more likely: getting a grant to disprove global warming, or getting a grant to produce evidence of global warming?
Depends on who you talk to. Grants for research aimed at investigating evidence for AGW would come from the government or private outfits like the Sierra Club. Budget of NSF: $6 billion. Budget of EPA: $10 billion. Budget of Sierra Club: $100 million
Grants for research aimed at investigating evidence against AGW would come from Big Oil or Big Coal. Profit of Exxon in the last quarter: $6 billion. Profit in 2009 of random coal company in China, Datong: $200 million.
If I wanted grant money to make a living, I would know exactly who I would talk to. And it isn't the NSF or the Sierra Club.
And, oh yes, the person at the center of the CRU meltdown, Phil Jones, now admits there has been NO GLOBAL WARMING FOR THE PAST 15 YEARS.
Are you still on that? You might want to at least link to the actual interview where that quote is supposedly coming from, which is here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm
And here is the relevant quote in question:
Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
Quite a bit of a difference from what you and that ncpa article are claiming, isn't it? Like always, it pays to go to the source itself. Unless, of course, you have no interest in what's actually happening, and are merely interested in finding your present ideas confirmed.
And again, someone fails to understand the difference between censorship and modding. Fail more, AC.
There are more religions in the world than days have passed since South Park started airing. What's your point?
This problem has several paid solutions, all of which work fairly well, and make maintaining a data center the job of one person, instead of 20 people looking at a spreadsheet and log files. I haven't found an open-source package that is nearly as competent as the integrated solutions offered by HP, IBM and others. Warning: sticker-shock is included. Bonus: PHBs like looking at pretty pictures, and all the commercial tracking software produces pretty pictures. Your PHB looks like a super-hero to his PHBs, and you become an invaluable asset to your PHB for making him look good.