How about basing decisions on REAL SCIENCE, and when we find out that stuff was made up, hidden, and lied about we STOP WHAT WE'RE DOING and re-evaluate?
.
When you learn you're on the wrong road, do you continue to drive on, or do you stop, re-evaluate, and then start again?
I'm not against change, I'm against using lies and falsified data on which to base decisions. Maybe you're OK with it, but I have a sneaking suspicion most people are not.
Actually, you can use the Sprint HTC Touch Pro on the Verizon network (the other CDMA network). You need the MSL code from Sprint, then you reset that value in the HTC Touch Pro to 000000, and have a Verizon store reprogram it.
I know scientists who don't like to share data because it tends to get ripped off. I've seen it happen with no consequences. There are valid reasons to do what they did.
While they don't have to share their data or methodologies, it would make it easier to validate their work. It would also make them look a whole lot better. You pays your money and takes your chances...
Having worked with geological data, I would consider any climate data set that didn't have significant alterations to be suspect. Real world data sucks. Really badly. But the people who don't like the outcome would slam the fact the the data has been changed even if it was good science. In general, people who oppose the concept of global warming don't care about science or reason or logic. They have their conclusion and they are going to find the proof...
Considering their research was paid for by Federal funds, and their respective Governments said the data had to be released by FOI laws, their withholding of data - actually, not withholding, LYING about having lost the data (which these e-mails make abundantly clear - perjury) - is simply unacceptable.
The problem is that we're paying the money, and they're taking the chances. These guys just set all scientists back a huge amount in terms of confidence of the public. These were the "experts" who dominated the IPCC, who were the ones who led the charge. And now it turns out they committed perjury, fraud, and who knows what else to simply protect their political opinions - not the science.
As a scientist, you should offer these cretins no quarter, no slack. They have degraded the entire scientific community with their wanton ignoring of the law, and their refusal to actually participate in the scientific process.
How about saying "sorry, we screwed up, the science is actually NOT settled, we'll put the whole revamp-the-world-economy on hold and check things out"?
If these guys had been on the up-and-up about sharing their data and methodologies from the beginning, these e-mails would be harmless. When you have 10+ years of stonewalling, hiding data, lying about data, refusing to show your work, and then these kinds of e-mails pop out, well, you kiss it all goodbye...
The important thing to note about this story is that, even if it's all true and all of the emails are genuine, and even if it completely discredits every scientist involved and all of the work they've ever done, this does not falsify AGW theory.
Yes, it does. The theory no longer holds as it was moved from the point of being a hypothesis by the use of false data and known-invalid processes, and the truth was hidden.
A theory is only as strong as the people, data, and process to support it. Eliminate the reliability of the researchers or the data, and you have removed the support of the theory.
I see. So when you stated the OS was much better, you really didn't mean it. And never mind that WinMo has supported gestures and multitouch for a LONG time. And displays to 800x480 resolution. And runs all the apps you can find on the iPhone and much more (like Flash, for one).
.
So your problem is not with the OS, but the hardware, or the applications you want to use, right? I know, semantics, but words are what we have, are they not?
OK, you prefer the iPhone. But what OS advantage does the iPhone have over WinMo? That was your contention, and I'm trying to understand your complaint.
It would suck, but Microsoft could have only done that if it had released hardware *and* an operating system that was as far ahead of the competition as the iPhone was from its competition. Apple had the advantage of a really high quality device and OS; when you make something good you get to make a lot of rules.
I'm trying to figure out how the iPhone OS was far ahead of Windows Mobile. Multitasking? No. Memory management? No. Even cut-and-paste? No...
The iPhone took off not because it was better hardware or software, but because it was from Apple (and thus automatically "hip") and the UI was very well done (which is NOT OS or hardware dependent). The stock WinMo UI is terrible, but adding something like Mobile Shell from SPB, or even TouchFLO from HTC and the UI is as slick - if not slicker - than the iPhone.
Verizon sells quite a few Windows Mobile phones; there are thousands of applications available there, and Verizon has no way of locking me out from running them, since the OS allows me to load applications directly via USB. I don't need to use an app store to get my apps...
I'd say taking a $250 million loss on $1 billion isn't very healthy. Additionally, Apple had revenues of $6.5 billion for the entire year of 2000, and in 2008 they had revenues of $9.6 billion, meaning that - for all the attacks on MS in this thread, Apple grew their revenue considerably LESS.
.
And note that Apple's revenue growth - contrary to your original assertion - is barely ahead of inflation; inflation alone should have taken them to $8 billion. Apple's revenue grew at an inflation-adjusted rate of 2.3% over the last decade; consider that Microsoft's inflation adjusted growth was 9%, over 4 times as fast.
Four times the revenue growth; I don't know I would call that fucking up...
Having been a vendor consulting for Apple and some of their products (hardware), I can completely affirm that, yes, development of products is very hit-and-miss. The most frustrating part about working with Apple as a vendor is the start/stop/start/stop experience of projects. Teams created with dozens of people only to be shut down 3 months later as some VP/Exec finds the "Next Shiny Thing"...
.
Apple's strength is in rebounding and reacting to their ever-shifting plans and processes, not in creating long-term plans. Because those plans simply never materialize. Lots of cycles burned on plans that will be trashed completely in 4-6 months...
$23 billion in 2000 would be $28.5 billion in 2008, adjusted for inflation (constant dollars; 2009 inflation rates are not finished). Meaning Ballmer managed MS as they doubled revenue in inflation-adjusted numbers. About an 8% annual growth in revenue (3 times the GDP growth) - not bad at all.
And what if Harvard is a legally registered trademark in a foreign country, not owned by Harvard University? Shouldn't the TLD in that foreign language go to the trademark owner of the country that natively speaks the foreign language?
Slashdot Mirror
When you learn you're on the wrong road, do you continue to drive on, or do you stop, re-evaluate, and then start again?
I'm not against change, I'm against using lies and falsified data on which to base decisions. Maybe you're OK with it, but I have a sneaking suspicion most people are not.
Actually, you can use the Sprint HTC Touch Pro on the Verizon network (the other CDMA network). You need the MSL code from Sprint, then you reset that value in the HTC Touch Pro to 000000, and have a Verizon store reprogram it.
The /. community has already decided that Apple is not evil, so there's no harm, no foul!
I know scientists who don't like to share data because it tends to get ripped off. I've seen it happen with no consequences. There are valid reasons to do what they did.
While they don't have to share their data or methodologies, it would make it easier to validate their work. It would also make them look a whole lot better. You pays your money and takes your chances...
Having worked with geological data, I would consider any climate data set that didn't have significant alterations to be suspect. Real world data sucks. Really badly. But the people who don't like the outcome would slam the fact the the data has been changed even if it was good science. In general, people who oppose the concept of global warming don't care about science or reason or logic. They have their conclusion and they are going to find the proof...
Considering their research was paid for by Federal funds, and their respective Governments said the data had to be released by FOI laws, their withholding of data - actually, not withholding, LYING about having lost the data (which these e-mails make abundantly clear - perjury) - is simply unacceptable.
The problem is that we're paying the money, and they're taking the chances. These guys just set all scientists back a huge amount in terms of confidence of the public. These were the "experts" who dominated the IPCC, who were the ones who led the charge. And now it turns out they committed perjury, fraud, and who knows what else to simply protect their political opinions - not the science.
As a scientist, you should offer these cretins no quarter, no slack. They have degraded the entire scientific community with their wanton ignoring of the law, and their refusal to actually participate in the scientific process.
How about saying "sorry, we screwed up, the science is actually NOT settled, we'll put the whole revamp-the-world-economy on hold and check things out"?
If these guys had been on the up-and-up about sharing their data and methodologies from the beginning, these e-mails would be harmless. When you have 10+ years of stonewalling, hiding data, lying about data, refusing to show your work, and then these kinds of e-mails pop out, well, you kiss it all goodbye...
The important thing to note about this story is that, even if it's all true and all of the emails are genuine, and even if it completely discredits every scientist involved and all of the work they've ever done, this does not falsify AGW theory.
Yes, it does. The theory no longer holds as it was moved from the point of being a hypothesis by the use of false data and known-invalid processes, and the truth was hidden.
A theory is only as strong as the people, data, and process to support it. Eliminate the reliability of the researchers or the data, and you have removed the support of the theory.
Yes, science is messy. Using known-messy science to set politically-driven Government policy is insane. That's the problem...
So your problem is not with the OS, but the hardware, or the applications you want to use, right? I know, semantics, but words are what we have, are they not?
OK, you prefer the iPhone. But what OS advantage does the iPhone have over WinMo? That was your contention, and I'm trying to understand your complaint.
Oh, they pay for games in China; I pay for games in China! 20 RMB for the latest XBOX title, 15 RMB for the newest Wii game, and the like...
It would suck, but Microsoft could have only done that if it had released hardware *and* an operating system that was as far ahead of the competition as the iPhone was from its competition. Apple had the advantage of a really high quality device and OS; when you make something good you get to make a lot of rules.
I'm trying to figure out how the iPhone OS was far ahead of Windows Mobile. Multitasking? No. Memory management? No. Even cut-and-paste? No...
The iPhone took off not because it was better hardware or software, but because it was from Apple (and thus automatically "hip") and the UI was very well done (which is NOT OS or hardware dependent). The stock WinMo UI is terrible, but adding something like Mobile Shell from SPB, or even TouchFLO from HTC and the UI is as slick - if not slicker - than the iPhone.
Verizon sells quite a few Windows Mobile phones; there are thousands of applications available there, and Verizon has no way of locking me out from running them, since the OS allows me to load applications directly via USB. I don't need to use an app store to get my apps...
If we go by money as an indicator of vision, the Steve Job's is blind compared to Bill Gates...
Hope, hard, and naked should not be used together in context of coding...
About 2,100,000 grains... Sorry, I'm in a reloading phase right now...
And note that Apple's revenue growth - contrary to your original assertion - is barely ahead of inflation; inflation alone should have taken them to $8 billion. Apple's revenue grew at an inflation-adjusted rate of 2.3% over the last decade; consider that Microsoft's inflation adjusted growth was 9%, over 4 times as fast.
Four times the revenue growth; I don't know I would call that fucking up...
Apple was losing so much money in 2000 they were almost written off; it was Microsoft dollars injected into Apple that kept them alive...
Apple's strength is in rebounding and reacting to their ever-shifting plans and processes, not in creating long-term plans. Because those plans simply never materialize. Lots of cycles burned on plans that will be trashed completely in 4-6 months...
$23 billion in 2000 would be $28.5 billion in 2008, adjusted for inflation (constant dollars; 2009 inflation rates are not finished). Meaning Ballmer managed MS as they doubled revenue in inflation-adjusted numbers. About an 8% annual growth in revenue (3 times the GDP growth) - not bad at all.
Running on a Pentium, of course...
And what if Harvard is a legally registered trademark in a foreign country, not owned by Harvard University? Shouldn't the TLD in that foreign language go to the trademark owner of the country that natively speaks the foreign language?
You left out "if Steve Jobs did the rework not only would it be right but your car would drive itself across the new iBridge 2.0..."
A company makes $1.2 BILLION a month in net profit, and it's a failure with a lost decade? And people wonder why techies usually suck as CEOs...
Huh, is that why the new 3GS phone was touting features that were standard in the WinMo world for the better part of a decade?