IP exhaustion is only in place if there is hard contracts that exhaust it. A lot of times vendors are licensed to make chips with IP in them - but NOT licensed to sell them without paying a use tax. Usually that use tax/license is passed to the purchaser to pay. In this case Apple - who doesn't want to pay what it is legally required to pay (and did pay for the better part of a decade, until it decided it was "too much").
HDMI or VGA to show things on TVs and projectors. Not to mention USB connections to test equipment (all of which seems to come with type A connectors). My current laptop (a Lenovo P71) has 4 type A USB ports on it, and I frequently have 3 of them occupied. The HDMI port on the back usually drives a secondary monitor as well.
Do you realize those models that you have such fervent faith in, predict warming from 0.01 deg C/decade to 0.082 deg C/decade, a factor of 8? And not a single model can tell us how much of that warming is natural, and how much is man-made? And you say the guy who's personal faith is in a divine being - but who uses 100% data for any scientific claims he makes - is the nutter?
Not really. It's Apple. There are alternatives out there (you can get completely Qualcomm-free cellphones). Apple wants the best (Qualcomm) but doesn't believe they have to pay what Qualcomm wants. I guess we could all "pull an Apple", walk into an Apple store, pick up a Macbook, offer $500, and when the "genius" doesn't accept - we walk out with it, and say we're going to sue to put it at a price that WE think is fair...
That "crazy dude", Dr. Roy Spencer, is a meteorologist and leads NASA's science team for climate satellites. Yeah, just a crazy guy, he's no scientist... He just collects data and uses that to determine what happens, and he doesn't toss out inconvenient data. Unlike Mann, Hansen, and most of the rest you apparently worship who believe data from a single tree on a Russian peninsula is enough to determine the complete climate record of the world.
Africa and Arabia were warm, as was China. That suggests it spanned around at least the Northern hemisphere completely - and ALL the current climate models assume that North and South are somewhat linked, so what would be the mechanism to say it didn't happen globally?
Using interns for your main assembly labor force can be wrong, but for engineering students, assembling for a few weeks or so can be HIGHLY instructional. Exposing students to production processes, manufacturing tolerances, and QC and such is a great way to get them to think, truly, about design-for-manufacturing as a core belief rather than a check-box as the end of a design. I know more than a few factories in the US that require their engineers reach at least "B" level performance at each production stage before being allowed to start designing gear for this very reason. If you are not intimately familiar with the assembly process and procedures of your factory, you're going to have a hard time designing something that can be reliably and consistently built in any kind of quantities.
Accumulated cyclone energy has been trending downward for nearly 30 years. A single event isn't "climate", it's an event - and there is no long-term indication that we have an increase in hurricane/cyclone energy (and, not altogether unexpected, tornado count and energy in the US is also dropping).
I have, and there really isn't much correlation between temperature and CO2. You need look no further than the cooling from ~1940 to ~1975, or the fact that heating from ~1900 to ~1935 matched that from ~1975 to ~2010. And that we had the medieval warm period and the little ice age that followed it. In other words, we've had big swings in temperature sans big amounts of CO2; thus, the historical data does not support CO2 as the driver of any climate change. It may have an impact, but it is a smaller one, if that.
False. About 1.6% of the climate papers that Cook et al. examined were explicit in "man causes the majority of global warming". But then, saying 1.6% of climate scientists agree doesn't sound too good, does it? So just adjust the data - er, model - and then you can claim what you like!
Which climate models would that be? Because without constant, nearly-annual re-jiggering of the models, we'd see that 95% of the models are flat-out wrong. But hey, now that output of the models is actually defined by the IPCC as constituting half the current climate (yes, models are half of the current climate - not the actual data, real-world empirical measurements - models), then models can never be wrong, can they?
Does science use projections as the baseline of what is happening? Because if you look at page 4 of the IPCC report, you'll see this interesting footnote:
5 Present level of global warming is defined as the average of a 30-year period centered on 2017 assuming the recent rate of warming
continues
Essentially, the climate today is the 30 year period centered on today, which means the last 15 years and the forecast coming 15 years, meaning that modeled results are as important to the definition of climate today as actual measured data from the past. I did not realize that science was founded on projections and potentials rather than actual data... If your model says it will be 3 degrees warmer in 15 years, then we can assume that today is 1.5 degrees warmer than it is - because the model is allowed to contribute half of today's actual data.
And do NOT vote for Gavin Newsom who has sexual misconduct in his own past. Nah, who am I kidding, it's SJWs in the Bay, they'll ignore that because he's the "correct" kind of guy...
Eisenhower. In 1957 we had an actual surplus, and the national debt was paid down. Every year since then the national debt has increased - meaning, we spent more than we brought in and had to borrow to cover costs.
Like I said in my first post. If the terrorists are bashing people and destroying property in the name of #YourGoals, it's all OK. When it's the other way around? It's downright hateful... Violence isn't good either way, and the moral indifference of so many on the Left is what gives rise to fascism - which is what the radical Left in the US is - fascist.
No, "conservative" just means you can count on violent, willfully ignorant, loudmouth assholes being present in overwhelming numbers. It's not automatically bad, any more than a serious cockroach infestation is automatically bad.
I guess because it's "conservative" that it's automatically bad. Meanwhile, Antifa (an actual domestic terrorist group) still has a Facebook page and there's no hue and cry about that. I guess some terrorists are bad, others are good - all depending upon what virtue you want to signal.
Slashdot Mirror
IP exhaustion is only in place if there is hard contracts that exhaust it. A lot of times vendors are licensed to make chips with IP in them - but NOT licensed to sell them without paying a use tax. Usually that use tax/license is passed to the purchaser to pay. In this case Apple - who doesn't want to pay what it is legally required to pay (and did pay for the better part of a decade, until it decided it was "too much").
That abomination of a connector needs to die a slow, painful death... And with it, the $2+ that the Lightning Apple Tax costs accessory makers.
HDMI or VGA to show things on TVs and projectors. Not to mention USB connections to test equipment (all of which seems to come with type A connectors). My current laptop (a Lenovo P71) has 4 type A USB ports on it, and I frequently have 3 of them occupied. The HDMI port on the back usually drives a secondary monitor as well.
Do you realize those models that you have such fervent faith in, predict warming from 0.01 deg C/decade to 0.082 deg C/decade, a factor of 8? And not a single model can tell us how much of that warming is natural, and how much is man-made? And you say the guy who's personal faith is in a divine being - but who uses 100% data for any scientific claims he makes - is the nutter?
You can get up to 16 GB of RAM, a need to carry multiple dongles, and an unreliable keyboard for only well over $1200!
Not really. It's Apple. There are alternatives out there (you can get completely Qualcomm-free cellphones). Apple wants the best (Qualcomm) but doesn't believe they have to pay what Qualcomm wants. I guess we could all "pull an Apple", walk into an Apple store, pick up a Macbook, offer $500, and when the "genius" doesn't accept - we walk out with it, and say we're going to sue to put it at a price that WE think is fair...
That "crazy dude", Dr. Roy Spencer, is a meteorologist and leads NASA's science team for climate satellites. Yeah, just a crazy guy, he's no scientist... He just collects data and uses that to determine what happens, and he doesn't toss out inconvenient data. Unlike Mann, Hansen, and most of the rest you apparently worship who believe data from a single tree on a Russian peninsula is enough to determine the complete climate record of the world.
Africa and Arabia were warm, as was China. That suggests it spanned around at least the Northern hemisphere completely - and ALL the current climate models assume that North and South are somewhat linked, so what would be the mechanism to say it didn't happen globally?
Using interns for your main assembly labor force can be wrong, but for engineering students, assembling for a few weeks or so can be HIGHLY instructional. Exposing students to production processes, manufacturing tolerances, and QC and such is a great way to get them to think, truly, about design-for-manufacturing as a core belief rather than a check-box as the end of a design. I know more than a few factories in the US that require their engineers reach at least "B" level performance at each production stage before being allowed to start designing gear for this very reason. If you are not intimately familiar with the assembly process and procedures of your factory, you're going to have a hard time designing something that can be reliably and consistently built in any kind of quantities.
Accumulated cyclone energy has been trending downward for nearly 30 years. A single event isn't "climate", it's an event - and there is no long-term indication that we have an increase in hurricane/cyclone energy (and, not altogether unexpected, tornado count and energy in the US is also dropping).
How DARE those corporate owners (shareholders) keep the profits! Terrible!
I have, and there really isn't much correlation between temperature and CO2. You need look no further than the cooling from ~1940 to ~1975, or the fact that heating from ~1900 to ~1935 matched that from ~1975 to ~2010. And that we had the medieval warm period and the little ice age that followed it. In other words, we've had big swings in temperature sans big amounts of CO2; thus, the historical data does not support CO2 as the driver of any climate change. It may have an impact, but it is a smaller one, if that.
It actually happened. CNN aired footage of people in Palestine celebrating as well.
You are wrong. The models do not match the data. So which do you believe - the satellite and radiosonde data or the models?
Or maybe you like HadCRUT 4 instead, even though it is riddled with errors?
Or the ERSST data that's been edited to create a rise where there originally wasn't one?
Which set of data, for which model, do you think is valid? Let's run that model from, say, 1980 until now and see how accurate it is.
If models can fit the facts, then the models are effective. Climate models absolutely do fit the facts.
No they do not. If the models don't fit, then admit you're a twit, and from this debate, you must go and quit (apologies to Johnny Cochran).
False. About 1.6% of the climate papers that Cook et al. examined were explicit in "man causes the majority of global warming". But then, saying 1.6% of climate scientists agree doesn't sound too good, does it? So just adjust the data - er, model - and then you can claim what you like!
Which climate models would that be? Because without constant, nearly-annual re-jiggering of the models, we'd see that 95% of the models are flat-out wrong. But hey, now that output of the models is actually defined by the IPCC as constituting half the current climate (yes, models are half of the current climate - not the actual data, real-world empirical measurements - models), then models can never be wrong, can they?
5 Present level of global warming is defined as the average of a 30-year period centered on 2017 assuming the recent rate of warming continues
Essentially, the climate today is the 30 year period centered on today, which means the last 15 years and the forecast coming 15 years, meaning that modeled results are as important to the definition of climate today as actual measured data from the past. I did not realize that science was founded on projections and potentials rather than actual data... If your model says it will be 3 degrees warmer in 15 years, then we can assume that today is 1.5 degrees warmer than it is - because the model is allowed to contribute half of today's actual data.
And do NOT vote for Gavin Newsom who has sexual misconduct in his own past. Nah, who am I kidding, it's SJWs in the Bay, they'll ignore that because he's the "correct" kind of guy...
Eisenhower. In 1957 we had an actual surplus, and the national debt was paid down. Every year since then the national debt has increased - meaning, we spent more than we brought in and had to borrow to cover costs.
Like I said in my first post. If the terrorists are bashing people and destroying property in the name of #YourGoals, it's all OK. When it's the other way around? It's downright hateful... Violence isn't good either way, and the moral indifference of so many on the Left is what gives rise to fascism - which is what the radical Left in the US is - fascist.
No, "conservative" just means you can count on violent, willfully ignorant, loudmouth assholes being present in overwhelming numbers. It's not automatically bad, any more than a serious cockroach infestation is automatically bad.
You mean like the terrorist organization, Antifa?
There are about 1 billion cars in the world. Assuming each is driven just 1,000 miles a year, that is at least once a year such a situation occurs.
ACs should be banned...
I guess because it's "conservative" that it's automatically bad. Meanwhile, Antifa (an actual domestic terrorist group) still has a Facebook page and there's no hue and cry about that. I guess some terrorists are bad, others are good - all depending upon what virtue you want to signal.