142 posts • joined Friday 25th April 2008 15:00 GMT
***Eponymous Howard, I think even you know how stupid your remark was.
People - climatologists, are doing that. And coming to the opposite conclusion to the AGW crowd.****
Really? Then I am quite certain you can link to many pieces of research where the data is equally freely available, the method clearly stated (and freely available) and the result equally replicable. No? Didn't think so.
"I think even you know how stupid your remark was...."
So download all the (freely available) data and apply the (freely available) models - some grasp of Fortran an advantage - and perform your own analysis. (or gather your own data and build your own models).
See how "dogmatic" it really is.
Re: Say what?
The other way round, brainache.
I would have thought....
....a far simpler experiment would be to apply heat to pretty well any liquid or gas. Then note how, even as the overall temperature rises, the temperature in any given spot because increasingly erratic and hard to predict.
You really are a card.
Re: Climate-change sceptics
You mixed science and political choice in your list.
The evidence does not care about the politics.
Re: Climate-change sceptics
True, but the evidence doesn't care who says what.
Don't grace deniers with the term sceptic. True sceptics look at *all* the evidence and draw conclusions that are always provisional, even when they are strengthened by each new data set.
Deniers ignore the vast bulk of evidence (like the plummeting sea ice, say) and focus on anomalies, claiming that the provide falsification, rather than merely showing the boundaries of knowledge.
In this respect their logic is identical to that of holocaust deniers and every bit as disreputable. So the little shits can whine all they like about the comparison; they chose this method.
From a very reliable source...
***The Reg uncovered that the person responsible worked offshore***
-The "subtle" error in updating batch scheduling software was made by an experienced, UK-based person.
-But with no-one in the UK left with a proper overview of the entire system, when the shit hit the fan India was instantly and completely overwhelmed, and had no idea where to start or who to contact.
-RBS Group pulled everyone in and stopped all other project work. People called out of retirement, past contractors etc were all contacted and many are still working 24 hour shifts. Triage was needed, with NatWest prioritised (most customers)
-But here is the scary bit.
Only three of the 4 main banks had had the update applied (NatWest, Ulster North and Ulster South). Had RBS itself also had the software, then the situation would in all likelihood have not been recoverable. Think about that.
This will. I am assured, rumble on for months and the opportunities for fraud are gigantic.
People with a massive...
...interest in FUD spread FUD, you say?
Re: THERE APPEARS TO BE.......
"a lot of concern"? Sophos has been saying it every quarter for about 8 years.
...won't these guys object to that name? http://boinc.berkeley.edu/
And of course..
***or is it a case of the farms only managing to survive because of that cheap labour being around?***
And, of course, EU subsidies, without which British agriculture would be bankrupt.
But Europe's evil innit?
Which BBC do you listen to?
***The Beeb avoided immigration ****
Not the BBC I listened to (nice quoting of a Tory muppet from yesterday's debate tho'). 5Live was an outlet for every wailing whiteboy with an axe to grind and, often, sickeningly indulgent of them (I say as the white son of a truck driver).
Ignored Europe? Again, which BBC were you watching? It was, and has been, a major topic throughout its current affairs output for years and gave massively undue air to the arguments of "eurosceptics", including some of the most boorish oafs ever to infect politics.
If you can't grasp how Murdoch's pernicious influence has corrupted our polity then you really are not paying attention. He wasn't the only one - but he was by a long way the worst.
Not new, hence no shock
Apple has had a pretty much "two generations and you're out of support" policy for ages (support for pre-OSX OS's was the only real exception - that went on until Leopard iirc). Mac users as a whole get this.
Their basic approach is (usually) to back those minded to make an orderly but timely transition - but if people don't choose to, they get dumped. The handful always whine, but Apple doesn't really care about the handful (See FCPX for this approach in extremis). "We're building new. Feel free to keep your old house, but don't call us if it falls down".
When Rosetta was available I took the deliberate decision NOT to use it - forced my self to decide what I needed to update and what was cruft.
Given we don't know the numbers...
...we don't know who "won".
As far as I could tell, Apple's primary beef was that Nokia was trying to charge them MORE than other handset makers, so refused to pay, provoking the spat and in turn counter-spat.
So it could equally be that MS told Nokia to get its eye back on the ball.
....you mean that, thanks to a bunch of panicky spacks, they are going to stop be being able to remind myself of where I've been and things that happened ages ago?
Thanks a fucking bunch paranoid freaks and scaremongers.
...for putting the "Wireless Watch" tag on these. It's saved the trouble of reading past the headline.
And then the governments...
...got thrown out.
Who's going to throw Google out?
"Ladies and gentleman of the jury, you can clearly see I was 1,000 miles away from Vegas, despite the police's attempts to stitch me up"
...new around here, aren't you?
That's not common logic...
...it is speculation. (In your example, we must first establish that Froobies are not native to Britain).
It does not even enter the realm of inference, but is pure implication. Or the "mud sticks" fallacy, if you prefer.
"Mac security experts say the number of known malware applications that target OS X is probably in the hundreds."
Is there a school of discourse where this sentence even remotely makes sense?
Is it known? Or is it probable?
....you do realise there have been huge lawsuits related to that a- and that the cast of one movie, filing in Nevada as some tests went on, had a massively out-profile rate of cancer deaths in the following years?
it was never officially 6...
...a French regulator gave the opinion that it was. Reuters reported that.
Lewis is still retarded though.
It isn't illegal.
Apple has no monopoly - curiously on players it's not far off, but customers have multiple ways to secure music, and if they want subscription content the only stipulation is that it must be available to customers via the app store at the same price as elsewhere (not as 42% more as you have twice claimed up thread).
Making shit up is what makes it hate.
Quality conspiracy theory!
What reality were you in?
What dominant market position would that be? I've read it in the tech blogs - Android rules the roost!
...another poster conveniently ignoring the fact that web apps were Apple's original preferred model until the dev community wailed as one and the SDK was released.
"Yes, but that cut isn't an arbitrarily high figure"
...it is an arbitrarily low cut forced by the publishers, who are almost exclusively large multi-national corps, on small - often sole trader - retail businesses, to no-one's benefit but their own.
Just another reason to hope that 'App Stores' dwindle as web-based applications rise.
Eh? Web based apps were Apple's preferred model with the original iPhone. Developers hated it.
(And you do realise that when you buy a mag from a shop, the retailer takes a cut, don't you?)