I think we're coming around to the same point... that we both hate the evidence provided in this article (maybe for different reasons). I agree this is theory first, evidence second, and that is bad (see my very original post that spawned the responses).
Okay... now... what I am saying is that the evidence provided in THIS particular article is very poor at best. However, if you're using that to make YOUR point, you're just as off-based as all the scientist you claim to be frustrated with. In the end, you only make my point, that futile pieces of fact like this article has only fuels your fire, it's 'evidence' that has been shaped to fit the needs of the global warming support camp. This is back to my point, why I hate it when people stretch like this.
There is however a LOT of circumstantial evidence beyond this article, and we all acknowledge we don't know for sure if this global warming thing is just a natural cycle, or any number of other things. We do know that we are polluting a lot and as a species we can make a pretty good guess that the footprint we have on the earth is not good, and we should reduce it.
In conclusion, I'm sorry you misunderstood my point, but you made it rather well.
Don't get me wrong, global warming is likely real, and we're probably accelerating it. However, we really need to find less... circumstantial... evidence. Piddily evidence only encourages the detractors.
So, did unlimited dialup access spur innovation? I think so. Would the same be true for wireless? You bet!
It's not the same though, with dialup, you had your own personal copper, your bandwidth all to yourself. With wireless, you don't have that, you have a finite total bandwidth based on a finite number of frequencies that everyone shares.
Those who disagree, don't deny there is a limited amount of bandwidth, they argue that technology will continue to increase bandwidth at the rate, or greater, than demand. But will that be the case? Increasing bandwidth in limited frequencies is not as easy as adding new fiber lines or, to compare it to data storage increases, making bigger hard drives.
I don't know who is right, but I'm skeptical that total bandwidth availability will increase as fast as demand. However, we do have a large buffer of room to work with, for now.
But the problem is the choke can happen because of everyone else... I could be using bandwidth very efficiently, and if those around me are using it "carelessly", everyone pays the price, even the one being efficient.
There is a reason RIM states that there shouldn't be unlimited bandwidth plans... the idea is simple, there is limited bandwidth. In the wired world, you can always add more wires. This doesn't apply to wireless, if everyone in an area is using huge amounts of bandwidth, everyone's performance goes down. There is a limited amount of frequencies to operate on.
Allowing people to create things that are bandwidth hogs ultimately puts everyone's use of wireless at risk. Whereas, putting a price on bandwidth encourages innovation in the area of value/bandwidth.
Sites like Myspace are not violating our privacy by collecting information about what we like, etc. If the only information they have is WHAT WE VOLUNTARILY GIVE THEM, then it's not a privacy issue. I don't have an account at one of these sites, but those that do GIVE them the information so that the users can better take advantage of the service. Of course, I expect the sites to honor their own privacy agreements with the users, but if I post on Myspace that I like hockey... and all of a sudden Myspace knows I like hockey... I really shouldn't be too surprised.
I agree there are tons of privacy issues in the world today that scare me, but if I fill information out and send it to a company, I shouldn't be surprised or concerned that they have that information.
The two successful landers are actually great feats of engineering, no denying that, and they are certainly recent projects. I wasn't going for some overall statement... my intent was just to say that the Voyagers are impressive based on when they were built, and what they've accomplished.
The concept of a 'New' NASA isn't a critique of the current engineers, though I undoubtedly implied that. The 'New' NASA is one that is dealing with an unheard of amount of policies, political pressures, and a significantly reduced budget. That anything succeeds today is a credit to the engineers there.
No, just wanted to give a thumbs up to a spacecraft that shares my age.
It's a credit to the teams that these things are still running. I feel like there is an old and new NASA.
Imagine a project today to explore the edges of the Solar System (I know Voyagers did more than that but we have to keep it simple today).
"Okay boys, now, we don't care what direction you go in, but could you please just not hit anything?"
All in all, I really feel for NASA.
Slashdot Mirror
I think we're coming around to the same point... that we both hate the evidence provided in this article (maybe for different reasons). I agree this is theory first, evidence second, and that is bad (see my very original post that spawned the responses).
LOL cool off just a second...
Okay... now... what I am saying is that the evidence provided in THIS particular article is very poor at best. However, if you're using that to make YOUR point, you're just as off-based as all the scientist you claim to be frustrated with. In the end, you only make my point, that futile pieces of fact like this article has only fuels your fire, it's 'evidence' that has been shaped to fit the needs of the global warming support camp. This is back to my point, why I hate it when people stretch like this.
There is however a LOT of circumstantial evidence beyond this article, and we all acknowledge we don't know for sure if this global warming thing is just a natural cycle, or any number of other things. We do know that we are polluting a lot and as a species we can make a pretty good guess that the footprint we have on the earth is not good, and we should reduce it.
In conclusion, I'm sorry you misunderstood my point, but you made it rather well.
Don't get me wrong, global warming is likely real, and we're probably accelerating it. However, we really need to find less... circumstantial... evidence. Piddily evidence only encourages the detractors.
2mm a year over thousands of years... ack!
oh wait, 2mm a year over thousands of years of fluctuation.... phew - things are normal, good, scared me there a second.
So, did unlimited dialup access spur innovation? I think so. Would the same be true for wireless? You bet!
It's not the same though, with dialup, you had your own personal copper, your bandwidth all to yourself. With wireless, you don't have that, you have a finite total bandwidth based on a finite number of frequencies that everyone shares.
Those who disagree, don't deny there is a limited amount of bandwidth, they argue that technology will continue to increase bandwidth at the rate, or greater, than demand. But will that be the case? Increasing bandwidth in limited frequencies is not as easy as adding new fiber lines or, to compare it to data storage increases, making bigger hard drives.
I don't know who is right, but I'm skeptical that total bandwidth availability will increase as fast as demand. However, we do have a large buffer of room to work with, for now.
But the problem is the choke can happen because of everyone else... I could be using bandwidth very efficiently, and if those around me are using it "carelessly", everyone pays the price, even the one being efficient.
There is a reason RIM states that there shouldn't be unlimited bandwidth plans... the idea is simple, there is limited bandwidth. In the wired world, you can always add more wires. This doesn't apply to wireless, if everyone in an area is using huge amounts of bandwidth, everyone's performance goes down. There is a limited amount of frequencies to operate on. Allowing people to create things that are bandwidth hogs ultimately puts everyone's use of wireless at risk. Whereas, putting a price on bandwidth encourages innovation in the area of value/bandwidth.
It is shaped like a giant hand?
Sites like Myspace are not violating our privacy by collecting information about what we like, etc. If the only information they have is WHAT WE VOLUNTARILY GIVE THEM, then it's not a privacy issue. I don't have an account at one of these sites, but those that do GIVE them the information so that the users can better take advantage of the service. Of course, I expect the sites to honor their own privacy agreements with the users, but if I post on Myspace that I like hockey... and all of a sudden Myspace knows I like hockey... I really shouldn't be too surprised. I agree there are tons of privacy issues in the world today that scare me, but if I fill information out and send it to a company, I shouldn't be surprised or concerned that they have that information.
Pirates apologizing for the quality of their work!?!? Hilarious.
The two successful landers are actually great feats of engineering, no denying that, and they are certainly recent projects. I wasn't going for some overall statement... my intent was just to say that the Voyagers are impressive based on when they were built, and what they've accomplished.
The concept of a 'New' NASA isn't a critique of the current engineers, though I undoubtedly implied that. The 'New' NASA is one that is dealing with an unheard of amount of policies, political pressures, and a significantly reduced budget. That anything succeeds today is a credit to the engineers there. No, just wanted to give a thumbs up to a spacecraft that shares my age.
It's a credit to the teams that these things are still running. I feel like there is an old and new NASA. Imagine a project today to explore the edges of the Solar System (I know Voyagers did more than that but we have to keep it simple today). "Okay boys, now, we don't care what direction you go in, but could you please just not hit anything?" All in all, I really feel for NASA.