Toronto's National Post (nationalpost.com) had roughly the same article on last Saturday's front page. There are no links, but there are plenty of quotations from respected scientists who DO believe in the AGW thesis that say Gore's movie exaggerated and misled in many areas. For example, Gore's movie shows pieces of the Antarctic ice shelf falling into the sea as if this is something that just started; the scientist quoted said this an annual phenemenon that has been going on for millenia. (Thousands, if not millions, of tons of snow fall on Antarctica each year; do you think that snow just piles up for ever?)
When will you Gore fanbois get the big picture? This fat hypocrite lives in a home that wastes energy on a huge scale, he flies constantly on a private jet, has a carbon footprint 100 times larger than the average US or Canadian, and while he preaches lies and exaggerations, he does so to promote the Kyoto protocol, which would force most first world countries to purchase "carbon credits" from 3rd world countries. Oh, and who controls one of the largest firms that trade those credits? Al Gore. This is a marketing ploy from an overstuffed stinking loser who's still pissed about the 2000 election - where, as the son of the former senator from Tennessee, and as a former senator himself, plus a two-term sitting VP, he couldn't carry his own state, which would have made the whole Florida controversy irrelevant.
The sun is not emitting much more light than it began with when we started measuring it.
Well, you demanded links; where's yours? Most scientists agree that solar energy output is related to the sunspot cycle, and that there may be longer term cycles we haven't been able to determine as yet. The AGW theorists are blaming any increase in temperature on an increase of CO2 from about 0.3% to about 0.6% of the atmosphere; are you saying it's inconceivable and irrefutable that solar output could fluctuate by less than 1% over time?
Thats why MS won in the end. Now, most people associate a PC and Windows. MS was just better managed, held a reasonable amount of respect within the general populace, and was able to sustain life into near monopoly.
I have to disagree. MS won because of their relationship with IBM. I worked in IT during the 80's, and IBM's market share was huge. So when employees started requesting PC's, IT managers bought IBM PC's which came bundled with DOS. IBM helped considerably by creating FUD that using "clones" would destroy the network, and that connecting them to the mainframe would cause compatibility problems. MS won their market share by piggy-backing on IBM's market power.
After that, it was simply the "network effect" - it was easier to share information, programs, etc., if everyone in the organization was using the same software. So even the the Mac was considerably more advanced - Christ, I am the only one who remembers the problems with getting past the 640k barrier, or "TSR" programs instead of true multi-tasking? - no IT manager would OK one for use outside of areas where its graphics abilities were needed.
Of course, if by "better managed", you mean used illegal anti-competitive methods, then I do agree with you.
WTF?? The article is about a major technical improvement by IBM, and half the
comments are about Apple's decision to switch processors?
I'd be much more impressed if people were talking about what new applications
would be possible with this much processing power, what this means for IBM customers,
and how this shows that North American companies aren't losing every technical
advantage as some people purport.
is this any less plausible than talking serpents, men walking on water, water turning to wine, immaculate conception, talking bushfires, resurrection or giants that live 800 years but leave no bones?
Well, one story is about 2,000 years old and is free, and the other is 50 years old, and costs you over $100,000 to find out. Neither is literally true, but which one do you think has a bigger chance of constituting outright fraud?
Oh, sure. It happens because cruise control is not based on constant RPM, but constant speed. If you're travelling through hilly country (we go through the New Hampshire White Mountains to visit a pal in Maine), the engine will speed up, and often downshift to a lower gear, to keep the speed constant on the uphill slogs. When in the mountains, I turn the cruise off, and let the speed slack off a bit on a steep climb. You get much better mileage this way.
The more important question: why not employ intelligent sensors in the roads? I have nearly blown a head valve sitting at a red light for two minutes with four other cars going N/S, while NO cars are going E/W. It's a complete waste of time and energy. On one major street near my house, there's a red light where there is no entering road (it's there to allow students to cross to their high school). Every five minutes, it goes red, even though there are no pedestrians waiting to cross. Push-button technology exists on stop lights, but they haven't bothered to deploy it there.
I'm all for exciting new vehicle-based technology, but why don't we deploy already proven technology that will affect all cars on the road, instead of the shiny new ones?
That's not a new technology; I had a Ford T-Bird back in the 80's (when it was the big boat) that flashed a red "Economy" light on the dash when you floored it. And you are correct - unless I was trying to pass a truck on a two-lane highway, when the light flashed, I would usually lift my foot off the gas.
Everyone on this thread seems to be missing the point. Most blockbuster movies take in 25-50% of their total revenue during the opening weekend. (http://www.boxofficeguru.com/open35+.htm) If a DVD shows up on the street even a few days ahead of the opening, that number can drop enormously.
And I sincerely doubt that Warner is worried about camcorder or cellphone movies; there has been a great deal of speculation that organized crime pays off the poorly-paid projectionist to provide a pristine copy, which they then use to make high quality DVD's. By stopping the advance screenings, they ensure their opening weekend gross is as high as can be. Makes perfect sense to me.
The point is it is not your speech; it's someone else's that you
have misappropriated. Your free to say what you want; you're not free to take someone
else's commercial product and redistribute it.
Well, I don't watch soccer clips on YouTube, but if it was just a clip show, as opposed to an entire game, shouldn't that fall under the "fair use" doctrine? You're allowed to copy some part of a copyrighted book or magazine, but not all of it. Why is this privilege only extended to print matter, and not video material? I'm not advocating piracy of music or movies - copying the whole thing is not fair use. But a great goal or great save; I can't see what's wrong with that.
Maybe you should move to Toronto! We get 2-3 EPL games on Saturday, Serie A on Sunday, and that's just on basic cable. And if you want to pay extra, www.goltv.ca gives you a bunch of La Liga, Bundesligue, Serie A, and South American games. Meanwhile, Champions League matches are all available in mid-week, again on basic cable.
MSNBC is a partnership between Microsoft and NBC, yet all the comments are slagging NBC and no one says a word about M$. I find this astounding behaviour for/.
Ouch... Kilgore Trout? I always thought he was kinda the good guy in the stories. Maybe I haven't read enough of them...
Of course, you're right. But then again, Vonnegut Jr. died last week. (Hey Cowboy Neal - how about a poll about how many of us have read him?) And I thought it was appropriate to append the name of a fish to a man whose personality was often mistaken with that of a tree, along with a subliminal wish to.. well, I can't say the last part, because we don't have free speech here.
The key difference is that NBC, CNN, CBS, the New York Times and so on aren't bound by it. That's why you have Administration mouthpieces trying to blame the New York Times for their mistakes. Even the President of the United States does not have the power that Putin has grabbed to essentially turn Russian media back into a state-controlled resource.
Mod parent up! As noted in an earlier comment, I'm neither a Bush-hater, or Bush-buttlicker. While I thought Bush was correct to go into Afghanistan and Irag, I was seriously disturbed by his administration's proposals to do away with judicially authorized wiretaps, internet snooping, etc. I don't mind when countries start wars against other countries who have committed acts of war against them; I do care when countries start wars against their own citizens who have done nothing wrong.
find the voluntary censorship of the US press far more insidious.
The approval rating argument just doesn't carry weight...afterall it was only a few years ago that the candidate with the highest approval rating in the actual polls lost the election in the US. I've yet to see that happen in modern Russia.
As a Canadian, I occasionally see some US news - CNN, ABC/NBC/CBS evening news (I don't watch Fox), and newspaper articles from the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, and the Chicago Sun-Times. With the exception of the latter, the coverage is uniformly critical of the Bush administration and its policies, regardless of that policy - the war, the environment, the economy, you name it. So, if there's voluntary censorship, I can't say I see it up here. And I say that as someone who thought Bush was correct to go into Afghanistan and Irag, but thinks he and his administration have made serious errors since, especially with the conduct of the Homeland Stasi^W Security. So while I don't hate the guy, I'm no Bush-loving sycophant either.
I agree with you that approval polls are useless. People will often lie to pollsters, telling them they support the most politically correct candidate, only to vote their conscience in the booth. I sincerely wish you Gore-lovers would get over it. The guy's dad was a US senator in Tennessee, Gore himself had been a senator from TN, and he was sitting vice-president in 2000, *AND HE STILL COULDN'T CARRY HIS HOME STATE*. Cripes, who was the last Democrat presidential nominee who couldn't carry his home state - Mondale? Four electoral votes from TN, and the whole Florida controversy would have been moot. But I bet Gore's pre-election approval ratings in 2000 in TN were higher than Bush's.
I'd be willing to let this sleeping dog lie, too, but my 13-year old was exposed to Gore's Moore-esque "documentary" (i.e. one that plays fast and loose with the truth) at school earlier this month. When I asked for equal time to present the opposing arguments, it was denied. Meanwhile, Kilgore-Trout cruises around the globe in his private jet, spewing out more emissions on one trip than most of us do in a year, runs a notoriously energy-hungry house (especially when compared to Bush's eco-friendly Crawford home), drives around for the most part in limousines with at least two police escorts (care to calculate the carbon footprint of that?), all of which I could stand (it's the same lifestyle that Brangelina, Bill Gates, and others live except for maybe the police escorts), *BUT* K-Trout does so while charging $100,000+ per speech to tell all the rest of us that *WE* have to change the way we live, not him. I don't care whether you are Republican or Democrat - how can you stand to listen to this opportunistic, Internet-inventing, hypocrite?
As if we didn't waste enough money on the gun registry debacle, now they want to create another registry? I'm guessing there are more internet users in Canada than gun owners. This would be a logistical nightmare; luckily, it has little chance of becoming law.
Slashdot Mirror
What if we just wrap ourselves in Saran Wrap?
When will you Gore fanbois get the big picture? This fat hypocrite lives in a home that wastes energy on a huge scale, he flies constantly on a private jet, has a carbon footprint 100 times larger than the average US or Canadian, and while he preaches lies and exaggerations, he does so to promote the Kyoto protocol, which would force most first world countries to purchase "carbon credits" from 3rd world countries. Oh, and who controls one of the largest firms that trade those credits? Al Gore. This is a marketing ploy from an overstuffed stinking loser who's still pissed about the 2000 election - where, as the son of the former senator from Tennessee, and as a former senator himself, plus a two-term sitting VP, he couldn't carry his own state, which would have made the whole Florida controversy irrelevant.
The sun is not emitting much more light than it began with when we started measuring it.
Well, you demanded links; where's yours? Most scientists agree that solar energy output is related to the sunspot cycle, and that there may be longer term cycles we haven't been able to determine as yet. The AGW theorists are blaming any increase in temperature on an increase of CO2 from about 0.3% to about 0.6% of the atmosphere; are you saying it's inconceivable and irrefutable that solar output could fluctuate by less than 1% over time?
I have to disagree. MS won because of their relationship with IBM. I worked in IT during the 80's, and IBM's market share was huge. So when employees started requesting PC's, IT managers bought IBM PC's which came bundled with DOS. IBM helped considerably by creating FUD that using "clones" would destroy the network, and that connecting them to the mainframe would cause compatibility problems. MS won their market share by piggy-backing on IBM's market power.
After that, it was simply the "network effect" - it was easier to share information, programs, etc., if everyone in the organization was using the same software. So even the the Mac was considerably more advanced - Christ, I am the only one who remembers the problems with getting past the 640k barrier, or "TSR" programs instead of true multi-tasking? - no IT manager would OK one for use outside of areas where its graphics abilities were needed.
Of course, if by "better managed", you mean used illegal anti-competitive methods, then I do agree with you.
You can't carry 5.1 lbs? Is this the ultimate definition of a "girly man"? Go to a gym, you wimp.
I'd be much more impressed if people were talking about what new applications would be possible with this much processing power, what this means for IBM customers, and how this shows that North American companies aren't losing every technical advantage as some people purport.
Mod parent up! I always knew there was something vaguely illegal about Scientology, but nurb432 hit it on the head.
Well, one story is about 2,000 years old and is free, and the other is 50 years old, and costs you over $100,000 to find out. Neither is literally true, but which one do you think has a bigger chance of constituting outright fraud?
Oh, sure. It happens because cruise control is not based on constant RPM, but constant speed. If you're travelling through hilly country (we go through the New Hampshire White Mountains to visit a pal in Maine), the engine will speed up, and often downshift to a lower gear, to keep the speed constant on the uphill slogs. When in the mountains, I turn the cruise off, and let the speed slack off a bit on a steep climb. You get much better mileage this way.
I'm all for exciting new vehicle-based technology, but why don't we deploy already proven technology that will affect all cars on the road, instead of the shiny new ones?
That's not a new technology; I had a Ford T-Bird back in the 80's (when it was the big boat) that flashed a red "Economy" light on the dash when you floored it. And you are correct - unless I was trying to pass a truck on a two-lane highway, when the light flashed, I would usually lift my foot off the gas.
And I sincerely doubt that Warner is worried about camcorder or cellphone movies; there has been a great deal of speculation that organized crime pays off the poorly-paid projectionist to provide a pristine copy, which they then use to make high quality DVD's. By stopping the advance screenings, they ensure their opening weekend gross is as high as can be. Makes perfect sense to me.
Er, just exactly how does this image conflict with reality?
The point is it is not your speech; it's someone else's that you have misappropriated. Your free to say what you want; you're not free to take someone else's commercial product and redistribute it.
Well, I don't watch soccer clips on YouTube, but if it was just a clip show, as opposed to an entire game, shouldn't that fall under the "fair use" doctrine? You're allowed to copy some part of a copyrighted book or magazine, but not all of it. Why is this privilege only extended to print matter, and not video material? I'm not advocating piracy of music or movies - copying the whole thing is not fair use. But a great goal or great save; I can't see what's wrong with that.
Maybe you should move to Toronto! We get 2-3 EPL games on Saturday, Serie A on Sunday, and that's just on basic cable. And if you want to pay extra, www.goltv.ca gives you a bunch of La Liga, Bundesligue, Serie A, and South American games. Meanwhile, Champions League matches are all available in mid-week, again on basic cable.
MSNBC is a partnership between Microsoft and NBC, yet all the comments are slagging NBC and no one says a word about M$. I find this astounding behaviour for /.
When I first saw the topic, my initial thought was "Oh, boy!"
Then I saw there already over 150 comments.
Well, except maybe "In Soviet Russia, happy news TELLS you", but that was pretty lame.
So I basically agree with the OP... crap.
Of course, you're right. But then again, Vonnegut Jr. died last week. (Hey Cowboy Neal - how about a poll about how many of us have read him?) And I thought it was appropriate to append the name of a fish to a man whose personality was often mistaken with that of a tree, along with a subliminal wish to .. well, I can't say the last part, because we don't have free speech here.
Mod parent up! As noted in an earlier comment, I'm neither a Bush-hater, or Bush-buttlicker. While I thought Bush was correct to go into Afghanistan and Irag, I was seriously disturbed by his administration's proposals to do away with judicially authorized wiretaps, internet snooping, etc. I don't mind when countries start wars against other countries who have committed acts of war against them; I do care when countries start wars against their own citizens who have done nothing wrong.
OK, I know who George Orwell is. Who is Marshal McCulin? Macauley Culkin's dyslexic brother?
The approval rating argument just doesn't carry weight...afterall it was only a few years ago that the candidate with the highest approval rating in the actual polls lost the election in the US. I've yet to see that happen in modern Russia.
As a Canadian, I occasionally see some US news - CNN, ABC/NBC/CBS evening news (I don't watch Fox), and newspaper articles from the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, and the Chicago Sun-Times. With the exception of the latter, the coverage is uniformly critical of the Bush administration and its policies, regardless of that policy - the war, the environment, the economy, you name it. So, if there's voluntary censorship, I can't say I see it up here. And I say that as someone who thought Bush was correct to go into Afghanistan and Irag, but thinks he and his administration have made serious errors since, especially with the conduct of the Homeland Stasi^W Security. So while I don't hate the guy, I'm no Bush-loving sycophant either.
I agree with you that approval polls are useless. People will often lie to pollsters, telling them they support the most politically correct candidate, only to vote their conscience in the booth. I sincerely wish you Gore-lovers would get over it. The guy's dad was a US senator in Tennessee, Gore himself had been a senator from TN, and he was sitting vice-president in 2000, *AND HE STILL COULDN'T CARRY HIS HOME STATE*. Cripes, who was the last Democrat presidential nominee who couldn't carry his home state - Mondale? Four electoral votes from TN, and the whole Florida controversy would have been moot. But I bet Gore's pre-election approval ratings in 2000 in TN were higher than Bush's.
I'd be willing to let this sleeping dog lie, too, but my 13-year old was exposed to Gore's Moore-esque "documentary" (i.e. one that plays fast and loose with the truth) at school earlier this month. When I asked for equal time to present the opposing arguments, it was denied. Meanwhile, Kilgore-Trout cruises around the globe in his private jet, spewing out more emissions on one trip than most of us do in a year, runs a notoriously energy-hungry house (especially when compared to Bush's eco-friendly Crawford home), drives around for the most part in limousines with at least two police escorts (care to calculate the carbon footprint of that?), all of which I could stand (it's the same lifestyle that Brangelina, Bill Gates, and others live except for maybe the police escorts), *BUT* K-Trout does so while charging $100,000+ per speech to tell all the rest of us that *WE* have to change the way we live, not him. I don't care whether you are Republican or Democrat - how can you stand to listen to this opportunistic, Internet-inventing, hypocrite?
Oh, for pity's sake, get it right. "Moscow girls make me sing and shout, then Georgia's on my, my, my, my, ... my mind..."
.. is that Dubner reportedly drew twice the audience of Microsoft's CEO.
As if we didn't waste enough money on the gun registry debacle, now they want to create another registry? I'm guessing there are more internet users in Canada than gun owners. This would be a logistical nightmare; luckily, it has little chance of becoming law.
no mod points, but this is funny. Now I have to wait 30 seconds to say this.