It took COURAGE to not create the notch, but rather to create two small display ears! One on each side of the front camera. It's not a notch into the screen, Apple was courageous and GAVE YOU TWO additional screens!
Such as? Can you name a man who founded a multi-billion dollar biotech VC-funded venture, committed extensive fraud for the better part of a decade, and walked away without even a charge or arrest, let alone a conviction?
The ThinQ is supposed to be 7.3mm thick - as thin as the iPhone 8. But they didn't show the courage of Apple and they kept the headphone jack. I guess their engineers are just not courageous enough to make internal parts bigger so you have to axe the jack...
She wasn't as wealthy as lots of other CEOs who went to jail for fraud. Of course, most of them were middle-aged white guys in fields dominated by middle-aged white guys. They weren't a young, brash woman heralded for "breaking the glass ceiling" in the tech industry.
Bernie Ebbers. Bernie Madoff. Ken Lay. Martha Stewart. Martin Shkreli. Jeff Skilling. Allen Stanford. Sam Waksal. All CEOs of multi-billion dollar corporations who went to jail for corporate fraud. It's not at all uncommon - and it makes news when it happens because it is fairly uncommon for fraud at the level of Holmes. She got special treatment because she was a young woman in tech - and that is not socially acceptable to penalize her for "breaking into the boys club" even if she did commit fraud at a Worldcom/Enron/Tyco level of fraud.
A high-volume product like the Kindle Fire may have an EVT run of 2500 pieces, and upwards of 5000 pieces for a PVT run. You may build - and toss - around 30K pieces during development, and they will be done at costs typically 3-5X typical manufacturing costs. Meaning you may spend around $5MM or more just on sample items, and another $4MM+ on tooling. This could easily equal the costs of engineering for a given product.
We used to have a concept about innocent until proven guilty. I guess now we don't even need a charge, or even evidence - let alone a conviction - to decide that someone is guilty and should suffer the absolute worst consequences possible.
You mean that "Fox News lawyer" named Alan Dershowitz, a self-proclaimed liberal, ardent supporter of Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama, and tenured constitutional law professor at Harvard? The guy who does a ton of CNN appearances too? Who's consistently pointed out there are NO statutes about collusion in the first place, let alone the fact that there are zero facts so far to support any wrongdoing? You mean that guy?
Let's ignore him, he says something you don't like. We'll accept the legal expertise of Rachel Maddow instead...
Then check 1880 to 1940 - about the same as post-1980. And the 30 year decline from 1940 to 1970. As far as the "age" of the study - has the historical record been altered that much that the data is no longer valid?
Energy into the system. If we go with CO2 as a greenhouse gas, then energy into the system would be the driver of heat in the system; CO2 may keep it trapped longer, but it's the energy in that causes the build-up of heat. The sun's variability alone equals 13% of the total energy generation/power of the current world (and much more versus even just 10 years ago). If we have CO2 output - and no energy output - would we heat as much? In other words - if your blanket is thicker but you have no additional heat in your bed, does your bed get warmer, or just get colder, slower?
Per Hansen et al. (figure 4), we had the same rise from ~1920 to ~1940 as we've seen from ~1980 to present. We had a pretty strong rise from ~1890 to ~1940, and that would cover a HUGE section of time pre-CO2 emissions issue. The rate of change is, in fact, not unprecedented.
NASA shows that the change from ~1920 to ~1940 is about the same as we've seen from ~1980 to current. About 1 deg C in both cases. So we have a rather recent, pre-big-CO2 release record of the same kind of quick rise in temperature.
This doesn't look constant to me... Yes, it's "just" 1 W/m^2 but given the fact there are about 5.1*10^12 square meters on the Earth, that's an extra 2.5 TW of input to the system. The world has about 19 TW of energy generation capacity (which we do not use at 100% capacity), so the solar flux over the last 100 years basically represents 13% of our current worldwide energy capacity. That's hardly an insignificant - or constant - amount.
Satellite and balloon measurements show the models are way out-of-line with actual measurements. Most likely the feedback of 3.2 deg K for a doubling of CO2 is wrong. The baseline of CO2 is 1.2 deg K; the 3.2 deg K comes from estimated feedback systems, and that is what is pumped into models (well, values from 2.1deg K to 4.4 deg K). However, those secondary sensitivity values are too high, and probably should be replaced with a total CO2-driven sensitivity of around 1.4-1.5 deg K per doubling, less than half what is used in the models. If you do that, you'll find the models suddenly agree with measured data. So the physics isn't wrong, but the estimated feedback coefficients for the physics is.
Historically, the US Federal Government funded itself principally from tariffs. This didn't really stop until the Cold War when very generous trade deals were offered as an inducement for fence sitting nations to join the "first world".
And I corrected you. You literally stated exactly what you now claim you didn't. Which is it? Did the US Federal Government fund itself principally from tariffs until the Cold War, or did that change over before WWII? Cannot have both be true. You claimed the former, when clearly data shows it's the latter.
In 2017, the US dropped over 32,000 bombs on Iraq/Syria.
In the Dresden firebombing, over 200,000 incidiary bombs, and over 15,000 high explosive bombs were dropped. That was in just 3 days. The number of bombs we drop in a given action is WAY down due to the high precision of most modern bombs. You no longer need to carpet bomb an entire city to take out a few high-value targets. A dozen JDAMs or cruise missiles and you get the same result - destruction of your high-value target. But you also have a LOT less collateral damage and civilian death. Orders of magnitude less.
Tariffs funded the US Government until the cold war? Really? Federal income tax revenues (individual and corporate) exceeded tariffs back in 1937, and have continued to do so ever since. That's a solid decade before the Cold War really got rolling...
If you were talking about Windows, the original "2001" might have been correct. You can run Windows 10 on a Pentium IV, which released in 2000. It's painful, it's slow - but it would still work.
Slashdot Mirror
You're Thinking About The Notch Wrong.
It took COURAGE to not create the notch, but rather to create two small display ears! One on each side of the front camera. It's not a notch into the screen, Apple was courageous and GAVE YOU TWO additional screens!
Such as? Can you name a man who founded a multi-billion dollar biotech VC-funded venture, committed extensive fraud for the better part of a decade, and walked away without even a charge or arrest, let alone a conviction?
The ThinQ is supposed to be 7.3mm thick - as thin as the iPhone 8. But they didn't show the courage of Apple and they kept the headphone jack. I guess their engineers are just not courageous enough to make internal parts bigger so you have to axe the jack...
She wasn't as wealthy as lots of other CEOs who went to jail for fraud. Of course, most of them were middle-aged white guys in fields dominated by middle-aged white guys. They weren't a young, brash woman heralded for "breaking the glass ceiling" in the tech industry.
Bernie Ebbers. Bernie Madoff. Ken Lay. Martha Stewart. Martin Shkreli. Jeff Skilling. Allen Stanford. Sam Waksal. All CEOs of multi-billion dollar corporations who went to jail for corporate fraud. It's not at all uncommon - and it makes news when it happens because it is fairly uncommon for fraud at the level of Holmes. She got special treatment because she was a young woman in tech - and that is not socially acceptable to penalize her for "breaking into the boys club" even if she did commit fraud at a Worldcom/Enron/Tyco level of fraud.
A high-volume product like the Kindle Fire may have an EVT run of 2500 pieces, and upwards of 5000 pieces for a PVT run. You may build - and toss - around 30K pieces during development, and they will be done at costs typically 3-5X typical manufacturing costs. Meaning you may spend around $5MM or more just on sample items, and another $4MM+ on tooling. This could easily equal the costs of engineering for a given product.
You mean like using a foreign national as a senior adviser? Perhaps a UK citizen named Christopher Steele, hired by the Clinton Campaign?
Those people are?
We used to have a concept about innocent until proven guilty. I guess now we don't even need a charge, or even evidence - let alone a conviction - to decide that someone is guilty and should suffer the absolute worst consequences possible.
You mean that "Fox News lawyer" named Alan Dershowitz, a self-proclaimed liberal, ardent supporter of Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama, and tenured constitutional law professor at Harvard? The guy who does a ton of CNN appearances too? Who's consistently pointed out there are NO statutes about collusion in the first place, let alone the fact that there are zero facts so far to support any wrongdoing? You mean that guy?
Let's ignore him, he says something you don't like. We'll accept the legal expertise of Rachel Maddow instead...
These climate scientists show that 97% of all IPCC models vastly overestimate actual measured temperatures as recorded from balloons and satellite.
Then check 1880 to 1940 - about the same as post-1980. And the 30 year decline from 1940 to 1970. As far as the "age" of the study - has the historical record been altered that much that the data is no longer valid?
We had a large dip in there, from ~1940 to 1970 - just as the CO2 emissions really started to ramp up...
Energy into the system. If we go with CO2 as a greenhouse gas, then energy into the system would be the driver of heat in the system; CO2 may keep it trapped longer, but it's the energy in that causes the build-up of heat. The sun's variability alone equals 13% of the total energy generation/power of the current world (and much more versus even just 10 years ago). If we have CO2 output - and no energy output - would we heat as much? In other words - if your blanket is thicker but you have no additional heat in your bed, does your bed get warmer, or just get colder, slower?
Per Hansen et al. (figure 4), we had the same rise from ~1920 to ~1940 as we've seen from ~1980 to present. We had a pretty strong rise from ~1890 to ~1940, and that would cover a HUGE section of time pre-CO2 emissions issue. The rate of change is, in fact, not unprecedented.
NASA shows that the change from ~1920 to ~1940 is about the same as we've seen from ~1980 to current. About 1 deg C in both cases. So we have a rather recent, pre-big-CO2 release record of the same kind of quick rise in temperature.
Here you go. The change is quite a bit (about 1 W/m^2) and has increased about 0.7W/m^2 since 1900.
This doesn't look constant to me... Yes, it's "just" 1 W/m^2 but given the fact there are about 5.1*10^12 square meters on the Earth, that's an extra 2.5 TW of input to the system. The world has about 19 TW of energy generation capacity (which we do not use at 100% capacity), so the solar flux over the last 100 years basically represents 13% of our current worldwide energy capacity. That's hardly an insignificant - or constant - amount.
Satellite and balloon measurements show the models are way out-of-line with actual measurements. Most likely the feedback of 3.2 deg K for a doubling of CO2 is wrong. The baseline of CO2 is 1.2 deg K; the 3.2 deg K comes from estimated feedback systems, and that is what is pumped into models (well, values from 2.1deg K to 4.4 deg K). However, those secondary sensitivity values are too high, and probably should be replaced with a total CO2-driven sensitivity of around 1.4-1.5 deg K per doubling, less than half what is used in the models. If you do that, you'll find the models suddenly agree with measured data. So the physics isn't wrong, but the estimated feedback coefficients for the physics is.
Do they fund you with the Verge coins?
Historically, the US Federal Government funded itself principally from tariffs. This didn't really stop until the Cold War when very generous trade deals were offered as an inducement for fence sitting nations to join the "first world".
And I corrected you. You literally stated exactly what you now claim you didn't. Which is it? Did the US Federal Government fund itself principally from tariffs until the Cold War, or did that change over before WWII? Cannot have both be true. You claimed the former, when clearly data shows it's the latter.
In 2017, the US dropped over 32,000 bombs on Iraq/Syria.
In the Dresden firebombing, over 200,000 incidiary bombs, and over 15,000 high explosive bombs were dropped. That was in just 3 days. The number of bombs we drop in a given action is WAY down due to the high precision of most modern bombs. You no longer need to carpet bomb an entire city to take out a few high-value targets. A dozen JDAMs or cruise missiles and you get the same result - destruction of your high-value target. But you also have a LOT less collateral damage and civilian death. Orders of magnitude less.
So why do they attack Europe? Why the bombings in Spain, the UK? Trucks running people over in France? Because of US intervention?
Tariffs funded the US Government until the cold war? Really? Federal income tax revenues (individual and corporate) exceeded tariffs back in 1937, and have continued to do so ever since. That's a solid decade before the Cold War really got rolling...
If you were talking about Windows, the original "2001" might have been correct. You can run Windows 10 on a Pentium IV, which released in 2000. It's painful, it's slow - but it would still work.