That's actually quite an excellent DPI, especially for a portable device... This may be exactly what i've been waiting for in a nice tablet to use for notes and drawings.
Ah, thanks for clearing that up... It's confusing since it's a totally different technology, and the desktop ActiveSync is a buggy piece of shit in my experience... strange that they would re-use that name for a corporate technology.
Yeah, but the $32 CPU has an e-peen value of zero, while these babies raise your e-peen over 9000!!! It's 'the most e-peen for your buck' (I think that was in the small letters at the bottom of the Intel advertisement).
ActiveSync is used to synchronize with the PC, when synchronizing with a server it's called Exchange... and Google has that for the e-mail, agenda and contacts. The best part of it: It has PUSH functionality and it works great with my WinMo phone. It generally just takes 3 to 5 seconds to see a change in Google Calendar appear on my mobile's screen. Since it's widely used in companies the Exchange server model is one of the few Microsoft products that works (fairly) rock solid...
No, but your Google results are now half price...
Seriously though, are they only finding this out now? Including Google who already used this service in the mobile version of Google Maps? I really don't think so...
Yeah, this pisses me off... why no expanding results that always include the 'smart' homepage like:
- Stackoverflow.com (1 more) +
--- Stackoverflow.com/ random_article_with_terrible_long_url_so_its_more_work_ to_select_this_and_go_back_home_than_type _stackoverflow.com_directly/2y498624392328874...
One thing that *can* be done, and thus is *meant* to be done once this JS audio hits the web: SilentFox plug-in, it kills all sound from all sites (except the white listed ones)... Never an annoying ad that unexpectedly gives you a heart attack when the speakers are still set to 11.
If dinosaurs had lawyers they would have won the patent for the Homo Erectus gene, leading to licensing cost so high no mammal could ever compete with them. They would have gone extinct taking us with them, leaving only the lawyers to inherit the earth.
But seriously, great post. This should be the new guideline, is someone adds value he is entitled to a slice of the pie, just honest market competition... By that same logic the Pirate Bay are the good guys, they have a distribution mechanism that benefits me the consumer by giving easy access to the combined pool of this worlds culture for near-zero cost, and they save the MAFIAA billions in distribution cost. It's added value and turtles all the way down!
Yeah, I've always wondered how banks could remain neutral while trading both for their customers and for themselves... I guess they can't... It seems to me like a rule: when there is an opportunity conceivable it is likely that someone somewhere grasped it, no matter what the reasons you can come up with 'why not'.
The symptom you're describing seems like cognitive dissonance. This mechanism of 'righting' a 'wrong' personal view that conflicts with facts (or more precise just another view) becomes a second nature the more you do it (please note that everyone does this more or less). In practice we know it simply like: the more you act hypocritical the more you become a hypocrite, and the more you lie the more you will become a habitual lyar.
The tricky part comes now you know about cognitive dissonance, once you catch yourself believing something that conflicts with a fact and you find youself justifying it somehow. Now you know that you probably experienced some cognitive dissonance, and you can either accept that fact and attempt to solve the internal conflict another way or you can blissfully ignore it by accepting the excuse you made up unconsciously... saying to yourself: "it can't have been cognitive dissonance, my reasoning was perfectly valid"... until you find yourself wondering about that statement == Cognitive dissonance ad infinitum!
It's easy to get stuck, especially if you never think or self-reflect...
There is a legitimate use for self signed certificates by adding transport encryption (works fine for SSH) for small sites that can't shell out the cash for the certificates. The only thing not present is verification, but that's already available in all 'qualities' (the cheapest certs. can be bought by anyone anyway, so for every site except the top 1000 this verification can also be very misleading). That is why users should be educated about the difference in encryption and verification (I'm pretty sure people can manage this distinction if the browser does, unlike the current misleading messages).
The browser could display this in the following address bar colors and add a layman's description:
- Green = Encrypted and verified = You need at least green for your bank etc. (P.S. there should also be levels of green, like green with two gold stars or whatever)
- Yellow = Encrypted = To keep your personal stuff personal during transmission
- Red = Either a wrong/spoofed certificate (or a known green site that is now yellow) = Danger!
- Grey = Regular HTTP = No fancy security of any kind
It doesn't surprise me that Internet Explorer isn't the first to implement something 'revolutionary' as three simple fucking address bar colors, but Firefox also fails to perform any self-signed certificate handling that doesn't pretend like you're at risk of accidentally signing a contract with the devil... You're supposed to support the little guys, and right now this bullshit is the only thing standing in the way of transport encryption for the masses. Mozilla, you disappoint me!
I guess Google has some measures in place to prevent people from abusing this now (a while back you could still search this way). But still, when you specify either a really small range or a really big range you'll get the results. They probably filter this query because it appears as a distributed botnet doing an SSN/CC/other search...
I hardly consider myself crazy or misinformed, just a critical thinker... and for your information I have not bought into any propaganda (yeah I know, all brainwashed say that), I have only read plenty scientific literature on the subject because of my own interest in the matter. The only AGW-denying literature on the subject I ever read was 'State of Fear', a fictional book by Michael Crichton (RIP) where he stipulates the need to read and think for yourself (and obviously that works two ways as I agree that there is a huge amount of FUD out there).
If you've read my post you'll notice I have not denied the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. But scientifically there are some indications that the CO2 is a correlating factor that may or may not be the main cause for warming, this makes me look further because our ecosystem is much more complex than just a single culprit. Why can't we just agree that it's a good thing to attempt to limit the amounts of fossil fuels used? It *is* possible to phase out fossil fuel use *and* keep doing science... we are in no way on opposing sides except of an imaginary line drawn by 'believers' who cast out 'unbelievers'. As a scientist the best science can be accomplished by working with (or competing against) another scientist with a conflicting theory, remember that science works by disproving, not proving theories!
Oh, one small side note, please don't make this a battle of scientist against everyone else... Scientists are also mere human beings with the same flaws and I sure as hell won't be thankful to them individually for all the great things we have accomplished today! Every scientist must prove himself by his own merit (dare I say given the controversies perhaps especially climatologists).
As for the cost, yeah you make a great point except it's mostly governments not companies deciding these matters on large scale (which is even worse considering). The cost of 'fixing the CO2 problem' is massive, and there is a whole industry emerging who want in on a slice of the pie. The craziest idea's are being sold, from imaginary carbon credits to cloud machines and atmosphere scrubbers... Scientifically all these things are not yet proven to have any lasting effect, but the people selling it to you won't tell you that little detail. Another bit of science they often neglect to mention: The global cost for 'fixing mother earth' is likely to indirectly result in the deaths of more people than global warming itself! There is a whole lot more to this matter than a simple conclusion that CO2 is harmful, and yet that is how a lot of people look at this...
Please understand that I only advocate a middle way that everyone agrees with: To stimulate the use of renewable energy even more and tax fossil fuels. And most importantly let the scientific community continue it's great work, keeping in mind the scientific method that indeed brought us so much.
CO2 has been *linked* to global warming, there is still debate if CO2 is the main cause, and there is a *lot* of disagreement over the effects in years to come. There is no accurate model of what will happen and especially the upper bound is very uncertain (varying from return to normal temperature, stability at higher temperature, or even a runaway greenhouse effect like Venus), and if all details about the role of CO2 in the atmosphere were known they could predict the temperature changes for the next century with at least some precision.
Please understand me, I think there is some warming and I think CO2 plays a part in that... But if you blindly accept the CO2 as the only culprit you are not really looking for a solution but settling for one handed to you. Leaving some questions unanswered (or discarding them outright) only feeds the paranoia of some, and the hopeless feeling that other scientists experience because of the perceived demise of the scientific method(s). Until now the best success against these 'crackpot' opponents has been to refute their false statements (like the volcano's etc.), so this is the way to go, answer any and all arguments with good science and facts that can be checked.
As to your question 'what incentive do climate scientists have': funding, which can be quite a lot. The scientific community has commercialized, there is no denying that. I think 'mislead' might even be a big word, but it is understandable they won't say "we're not sure about the cause, we need to study more" and instead say "this is the likely cause, we need to study this more" which becomes a hyperbole 'fact' when competing for the funds. It's not exclusive to global warming, scientists are also trying to sell their services and any salesman can tell you that to sell it helps to exaggerate a little... This is no conspiracy on a massive scale, just some typical human behavior. These people are no saints here to save us, they're just another working guy making their living with this stuff... Although people like Al Gore are plain opportunists. Sorry but it has to be said, if he had any altruistic goals he sure as hell would not have capitalized on it personally... fucking hypocrite.
Make no mistake, I think everything else you said is also wrong
P.S. This kinda stuck with me... If you believe global warming is an imminent threat and CO2 reduction is the way to go I would think that you would want to do anything to help people understand this and share this mindset. The points I mentioned are opinions I have noticed that increase people's doubt, they are in no way factual since opinions may vary per person. That being said, you also can't conclude that everything is wrong since these are real opinions that do exist in people's mind.
If your goal is to reduce doubt (and increase awareness) you should address these points (think of it as inside knowledge of how your 'opponents' think and use it to the advantage of your cause). Al Gore could for example donate all money he makes to environmental causes and take away most of the doubt of that point, but of course not everything is in your power. On the other hand you personally can attempt to have meaningful discussions (like we do now), and in particular make sure not to fall back to ad-hominem attacks if people's idea's are strange to you.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas and thus a factor, but I think it's not the main factor (by a long shot)... Why is someone crazy when he expresses doubt? Why do you *know* you are right? Who told you? Why do you *know* they are right?
If you believe our globe is warming up you should attempt to explore every angle at dealing with the problem. The scientific way of refining models and theories only works when you allow discussion of multiple (conflicting) ideas, theories and models.
If CO2 is a problem you have four possible solutions
Is CO2 the mayor problem? You asked the question rhetorically but for me this has not yet been answered with sufficient *scientific* backing. Sure, the guy you pay the money to is the guy who told you CO2 is the problem. Don't you understand that is questionable? Besides, there are already taxes on fuel, these taxes indirectly also tax the CO2... no need for a new tax.
And even if CO2 was the only factor of the problem, how do you even think a CO2 tax will help anything (hint: energy usage will continue to rise perhaps a slight bit slower, but rise nonetheless)?
Slashdot Mirror
That's actually quite an excellent DPI, especially for a portable device... This may be exactly what i've been waiting for in a nice tablet to use for notes and drawings.
I'd say longer than the longest stretch limo... :)
I also prefer real women, not one that has turned from a muon into a tau...
Ah, thanks for clearing that up... It's confusing since it's a totally different technology, and the desktop ActiveSync is a buggy piece of shit in my experience... strange that they would re-use that name for a corporate technology.
Thanks, i'll do just that...
Yeah, but the $32 CPU has an e-peen value of zero, while these babies raise your e-peen over 9000!!! It's 'the most e-peen for your buck' (I think that was in the small letters at the bottom of the Intel advertisement).
ActiveSync is used to synchronize with the PC, when synchronizing with a server it's called Exchange... and Google has that for the e-mail, agenda and contacts. The best part of it: It has PUSH functionality and it works great with my WinMo phone. It generally just takes 3 to 5 seconds to see a change in Google Calendar appear on my mobile's screen. Since it's widely used in companies the Exchange server model is one of the few Microsoft products that works (fairly) rock solid...
No, but your Google results are now half price...
Seriously though, are they only finding this out now? Including Google who already used this service in the mobile version of Google Maps? I really don't think so...
Yeah, this pisses me off... why no expanding results that always include the 'smart' homepage like:
- Stackoverflow.com (1 more) +
--- Stackoverflow.com/ random_article_with_terrible_long_url_so_its_more_work_ to_select_this_and_go_back_home_than_type _stackoverflow.com_directly/2y498624392328874...
Slashdot: it's Life, but not as we know it...
One thing that *can* be done, and thus is *meant* to be done once this JS audio hits the web: SilentFox plug-in, it kills all sound from all sites (except the white listed ones)... Never an annoying ad that unexpectedly gives you a heart attack when the speakers are still set to 11.
If dinosaurs had lawyers they would have won the patent for the Homo Erectus gene, leading to licensing cost so high no mammal could ever compete with them. They would have gone extinct taking us with them, leaving only the lawyers to inherit the earth.
But seriously, great post. This should be the new guideline, is someone adds value he is entitled to a slice of the pie, just honest market competition... By that same logic the Pirate Bay are the good guys, they have a distribution mechanism that benefits me the consumer by giving easy access to the combined pool of this worlds culture for near-zero cost, and they save the MAFIAA billions in distribution cost. It's added value and turtles all the way down!
Yeah, I've always wondered how banks could remain neutral while trading both for their customers and for themselves... I guess they can't... It seems to me like a rule: when there is an opportunity conceivable it is likely that someone somewhere grasped it, no matter what the reasons you can come up with 'why not'.
This is one of the best comments I've read about this issue.
Those are wonderful and terrible days!
You, sir, are indeed a fantastic lad. Very insightful... :)
The symptom you're describing seems like cognitive dissonance. This mechanism of 'righting' a 'wrong' personal view that conflicts with facts (or more precise just another view) becomes a second nature the more you do it (please note that everyone does this more or less). In practice we know it simply like: the more you act hypocritical the more you become a hypocrite, and the more you lie the more you will become a habitual lyar.
The tricky part comes now you know about cognitive dissonance, once you catch yourself believing something that conflicts with a fact and you find youself justifying it somehow. Now you know that you probably experienced some cognitive dissonance, and you can either accept that fact and attempt to solve the internal conflict another way or you can blissfully ignore it by accepting the excuse you made up unconsciously... saying to yourself: "it can't have been cognitive dissonance, my reasoning was perfectly valid"... until you find yourself wondering about that statement == Cognitive dissonance ad infinitum!
It's easy to get stuck, especially if you never think or self-reflect...
Rest in pieces little dude... You loved to rock!
There is a legitimate use for self signed certificates by adding transport encryption (works fine for SSH) for small sites that can't shell out the cash for the certificates. The only thing not present is verification, but that's already available in all 'qualities' (the cheapest certs. can be bought by anyone anyway, so for every site except the top 1000 this verification can also be very misleading). That is why users should be educated about the difference in encryption and verification (I'm pretty sure people can manage this distinction if the browser does, unlike the current misleading messages).
The browser could display this in the following address bar colors and add a layman's description:
- Green = Encrypted and verified = You need at least green for your bank etc. (P.S. there should also be levels of green, like green with two gold stars or whatever)
- Yellow = Encrypted = To keep your personal stuff personal during transmission
- Red = Either a wrong/spoofed certificate (or a known green site that is now yellow) = Danger!
- Grey = Regular HTTP = No fancy security of any kind
It doesn't surprise me that Internet Explorer isn't the first to implement something 'revolutionary' as three simple fucking address bar colors, but Firefox also fails to perform any self-signed certificate handling that doesn't pretend like you're at risk of accidentally signing a contract with the devil... You're supposed to support the little guys, and right now this bullshit is the only thing standing in the way of transport encryption for the masses. Mozilla, you disappoint me!
I guess Google has some measures in place to prevent people from abusing this now (a while back you could still search this way). But still, when you specify either a really small range or a really big range you'll get the results. They probably filter this query because it appears as a distributed botnet doing an SSN/CC/other search...
I hardly consider myself crazy or misinformed, just a critical thinker... and for your information I have not bought into any propaganda (yeah I know, all brainwashed say that), I have only read plenty scientific literature on the subject because of my own interest in the matter. The only AGW-denying literature on the subject I ever read was 'State of Fear', a fictional book by Michael Crichton (RIP) where he stipulates the need to read and think for yourself (and obviously that works two ways as I agree that there is a huge amount of FUD out there).
If you've read my post you'll notice I have not denied the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. But scientifically there are some indications that the CO2 is a correlating factor that may or may not be the main cause for warming, this makes me look further because our ecosystem is much more complex than just a single culprit. Why can't we just agree that it's a good thing to attempt to limit the amounts of fossil fuels used? It *is* possible to phase out fossil fuel use *and* keep doing science... we are in no way on opposing sides except of an imaginary line drawn by 'believers' who cast out 'unbelievers'. As a scientist the best science can be accomplished by working with (or competing against) another scientist with a conflicting theory, remember that science works by disproving, not proving theories!
Oh, one small side note, please don't make this a battle of scientist against everyone else... Scientists are also mere human beings with the same flaws and I sure as hell won't be thankful to them individually for all the great things we have accomplished today! Every scientist must prove himself by his own merit (dare I say given the controversies perhaps especially climatologists).
As for the cost, yeah you make a great point except it's mostly governments not companies deciding these matters on large scale (which is even worse considering). The cost of 'fixing the CO2 problem' is massive, and there is a whole industry emerging who want in on a slice of the pie. The craziest idea's are being sold, from imaginary carbon credits to cloud machines and atmosphere scrubbers... Scientifically all these things are not yet proven to have any lasting effect, but the people selling it to you won't tell you that little detail. Another bit of science they often neglect to mention: The global cost for 'fixing mother earth' is likely to indirectly result in the deaths of more people than global warming itself! There is a whole lot more to this matter than a simple conclusion that CO2 is harmful, and yet that is how a lot of people look at this...
Please understand that I only advocate a middle way that everyone agrees with: To stimulate the use of renewable energy even more and tax fossil fuels. And most importantly let the scientific community continue it's great work, keeping in mind the scientific method that indeed brought us so much.
Better yet google for the a range of 10000 numbers by adding two dots between the lower and upper number:
Google: 123450000..123459999
This way you can search for SSN, CC numbers etc.
CO2 has been *linked* to global warming, there is still debate if CO2 is the main cause, and there is a *lot* of disagreement over the effects in years to come. There is no accurate model of what will happen and especially the upper bound is very uncertain (varying from return to normal temperature, stability at higher temperature, or even a runaway greenhouse effect like Venus), and if all details about the role of CO2 in the atmosphere were known they could predict the temperature changes for the next century with at least some precision.
Please understand me, I think there is some warming and I think CO2 plays a part in that... But if you blindly accept the CO2 as the only culprit you are not really looking for a solution but settling for one handed to you. Leaving some questions unanswered (or discarding them outright) only feeds the paranoia of some, and the hopeless feeling that other scientists experience because of the perceived demise of the scientific method(s). Until now the best success against these 'crackpot' opponents has been to refute their false statements (like the volcano's etc.), so this is the way to go, answer any and all arguments with good science and facts that can be checked.
As to your question 'what incentive do climate scientists have': funding, which can be quite a lot. The scientific community has commercialized, there is no denying that. I think 'mislead' might even be a big word, but it is understandable they won't say "we're not sure about the cause, we need to study more" and instead say "this is the likely cause, we need to study this more" which becomes a hyperbole 'fact' when competing for the funds. It's not exclusive to global warming, scientists are also trying to sell their services and any salesman can tell you that to sell it helps to exaggerate a little... This is no conspiracy on a massive scale, just some typical human behavior. These people are no saints here to save us, they're just another working guy making their living with this stuff...
Although people like Al Gore are plain opportunists. Sorry but it has to be said, if he had any altruistic goals he sure as hell would not have capitalized on it personally... fucking hypocrite.
Make no mistake, I think everything else you said is also wrong
P.S. This kinda stuck with me... If you believe global warming is an imminent threat and CO2 reduction is the way to go I would think that you would want to do anything to help people understand this and share this mindset. The points I mentioned are opinions I have noticed that increase people's doubt, they are in no way factual since opinions may vary per person. That being said, you also can't conclude that everything is wrong since these are real opinions that do exist in people's mind. If your goal is to reduce doubt (and increase awareness) you should address these points (think of it as inside knowledge of how your 'opponents' think and use it to the advantage of your cause).
Al Gore could for example donate all money he makes to environmental causes and take away most of the doubt of that point, but of course not everything is in your power. On the other hand you personally can attempt to have meaningful discussions (like we do now), and in particular make sure not to fall back to ad-hominem attacks if people's idea's are strange to you.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas and thus a factor, but I think it's not the main factor (by a long shot)... Why is someone crazy when he expresses doubt? Why do you *know* you are right? Who told you? Why do you *know* they are right?
If you believe our globe is warming up you should attempt to explore every angle at dealing with the problem. The scientific way of refining models and theories only works when you allow discussion of multiple (conflicting) ideas, theories and models.
If CO2 is a problem you have four possible solutions
Is CO2 the mayor problem? You asked the question rhetorically but for me this has not yet been answered with sufficient *scientific* backing. Sure, the guy you pay the money to is the guy who told you CO2 is the problem. Don't you understand that is questionable? Besides, there are already taxes on fuel, these taxes indirectly also tax the CO2... no need for a new tax.
And even if CO2 was the only factor of the problem, how do you even think a CO2 tax will help anything (hint: energy usage will continue to rise perhaps a slight bit slower, but rise nonetheless)?