70 posts • joined Thursday 9th December 2010 14:55 GMT
YES - Move Mr. Page to Forums.
All one has to do is read this article: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07/15/there_is_no_scientific_consensus_on_sealevel_rise_say_scientists/
and then read the actual paper referenced in the article:
to see that Mr. Page is not a reporter, but rather an opinion editor. What a joke. A reporter would reference the article and summarize without adding the blatant editorial interpretation.
At this point, Mr. Page is no better than a troll.
Re: "free of politics"
"and human error”
I'm confused, the twins are involved AND expect it to be free of human error? Isn't that deliberately contradictory? Oh - my fault I neglected to factor in their long relationship with delusional thinking.
(These two are priceless.)
What do "deniers" actually believe?
I see the fervent commentary in here - much of it implying some vast conspiracy regarding climate science and I find myself really curious what the average AWG "denier" does believe?
1) Do you believe that carbon dioxide is a "greenhouse gas?"
2) If yes, to 1) is this an issue of doubting the degree of energy retention?
-or if no to 1), are you aware that Venus's atmosphere is 98+% CO2 and without an energy retention effect, it wouldn't be anywhere near as hot as it is - or that similarly the Earth's average temperature would be around freezing without said effect? (Alternately, were you aware that 40 years of satellite data show that the energy reflected back into space by the Earth has declined over the past 40 years and similarly that surface instrumentation on Earth shows increasing downward infrared radiation over the same period??
3) If you believe that CO2 does help the Earth retain solar energy, but question the temperature changes predicted because the current temperatures don't appear to have increased as alarmingly as predicted are you open to the possibility that our oceans are acting as a big heat sink and sooner or later said sinks will fill up?
I ask these questions seriously and not to be deliberately argumentative, but because I am really trying to understand the hard pushback? I get that attempting to thwart AGW is perceived to be economically disruptive - although I've always observed that there is always profit to be made in changing markets. What I don't understand is the absolute heels in the sand reaction. If we identified an asteroid and 97% of astronomers polled said that it appeared to be on a collision course with Earth in 30 years, would we wait to see if the 3% were right? Or would we work on contingency plans in case the 97% actually have it right?
I'm obviously in the camp of believing that humans impact climate, but I am certainly not a climate scientist. I am pretty comfortable with the understanding that CO2 (like water vapor) is really good at absorbing infrared energy around 15 µm. It seems pretty logical to me from knowing that, that it will act as a greenhouse gas. I am also pretty comfortable with that energy is neither created nor destroyed thing. Consequently if CO2 absorbs infrared and the amount of CO2 is rising in the air then I would expect the amount of energy retained is going to increase (assuming a constant solar output - which obviously is inaccurate, but for the sake of basic logic an arguably reasonable assumption to make for clarity), If our climate models are doing a poor job of predicting the effects of said retained energy then the models need improvement. (for example they may not be adequately accounting for ocean's as energy sinks.) That doesn't however negate the fact that more energy is being retained by the system than previously - we can't expect that to continue without impact can we?
But even if I take what I assume to be the denialist position that the rising CO2 levels won't cause the temperature change predicted, should we ignore the demonstrably proven ocean acidification associated with increasing CO2 levels? Unlike complex computer climate models CO2 acidification is pretty easy to demonstrate with chemistry - as are the realities of ocean acidification with regard to broad groups of ocean life - personally a 30% increase in H+ ion concentrations in the past 250 years isn't something that I think should be ignored - especially when one looks at the human population increases accelerating over that period of time and when one realizes that at least a billion humans rely on fish as their primary source of protein. So what about that - what if the climate scientists are 100% wrong about CO2 based temperature change and we are still drastically harming ocean organisms that rely on calcium carbonate - and the organisms that feed on said organisms, and the organisms that feed on them... and... etc. etc. etc. (all the way back to us).
I KNOW!!!! You'd think so, right??? Although the awesomeness of my BS apparently blinds them from reality - even when they walk into my office to find me asleep, drooling, with my pants around my ankles, and the final scene of internet porn on my monitor.
It really is perplexing.
I also "love" (see sarcasm for loathe) all of the endorsements my skills receive from people that have only talked to me on the phone, never seen a work product of mine, etc. Yes, I know my complete awesomeness is undeniable, but come one people you should at least consider the possibility that I might be a BS artist?
In all seriousness, does anyone else find themselves reminded of elementary school by the endorsement thing - you know back when you'd give out candy hearts on Valentine's Day so other kids would like you. Cheap, shitty-tasting candy to buy affection. Hmmmmmmm
I don't give a ---- what Steve says...
If the acronym stands for Graphics Interchange Format, you'd have to be a complete twat to pronounce it with a "J" and I don't give a ---- what twats say or think.
ergo Steve is a twat and I don't give a ---- what he says.
Re: Cupertino, start your photocopiers
I understand your point, but technically the S3 wireless charging announced @ launch was vaporware ;> Of course they have implied that in addition to the S4, the S3 will get a refresh that will include it.
Anyway, there are inovations that Samsung has produced that Apple has not immulated - of course that could be because that would make Apple hypocritical in their previous criticisms that Samsung products were nothing but knockoffs of Apple products (I've disagreed with that assertion on the grounds that no patent should ever be awarded for derivative elements like rounded corners.)
ANYWAY, the real observation I'll make with regard to the S4 is that like with SIRI, the non-touch gesture based interface may not really be ready for prime-time, but it does signal the likely evolution of future interfaces. Sooner or later we know that we'll all be able to talk to and gesture at our "portable assistant." Nobody is actually there yet, but they will get there. As such, Crapple fanboi suggestions that Samsung only emulates are clearly unfounded.
But then again fanBoys will be fanBoys (on both sides).
I'm confused. They are concerned about being condemned to hell, but they already live in Texas now?
Interesting coincidence that on the same day that Lewise posts one of his typical articles, I see a seemingly contradictory article on a different website.
Lewis's article basically says - there is no problem with ice melt in Greenland because we used interpretive math to remove assumed noise fromm the satelite measurement.
The NBC article - measurements of sea level vs. previous UN predictions (labeled as alarmist) show that the (alarmist) predictions were in error - which would be all well and good for Lewis, except they were in error to the low side of reality.
I'm sure that Lewis will no doubt soon report a science paper that takes one aspect of the sea level data measurement for a small tidal marsh in lower, western Namibia and interpret that the world wide reported rises in sea level are inaccurated due to collusional boffins.
do they try to patent square icons with rounded corners? Apple may be using the idiocy of our patent system (perfectly legally) to their advantage, but I find my nice American, middle-class, caucasian male self pulling for the Korean company an that's pretty screwed up because Apple profits are good for the American economy - well sort of anyway. Yeah, Samsung is just another corporate monolith, but with Apple making a complete mockery of the original intent of the patent system I can only hope they (Crapple) fall flat on their faces.
A gigantic ass
A gigantic ass four times as large as all other icons. Why? Because donkeys are cool.
Alternately an FSM (Flying Spaghetti Monster) because his noodley greatness demands your undying worship.
Re: Not a fan
At the last launch, I tried to point out that the last couple of iPhones had seemed iterative at best and was resoundingly shouted down by Crapple fanbois. What is the point of the standard Crapple push for yearly handset churn when:
1) Most users are locked into a 2 year contract.
2) The "brand new" phone is only an interation of capability from the previous version and/or very similar to the capability of other phones on the market.
3) It includes major issues like iOS maps.
I mean what is the point for the consumer? - From the perspective of Crapple, they definitely want their users churning over to a new iDevice every year.
Is there any thing worse than a rabid, unquestioning fan?
Re: And what about language?
<insert fond memories of grandpa suggesting I pull his finger>
Re: I'll say it
Ahhh, but Crapple would be prefer that you buy an iTablet, a iLaptop, an iPhone, etc. (yes I am deliberately abusing their product names). I see W8/Surface as Microsoft trying to jump a little further to device convergence. To do that they have to encourage all their existing users of the desktop OS to not jump ship, but still support the touch / tablet form factor. I personally am hoping the Surface Pro is that well aligned replacement of a tablet and a laptop - I only need one if it can do both jobs effectively. iTablet can never be that because flexibility is neutered by Apple control - good for Apple and generally good for the average consumer because it protects them from screwing themselves. However, I don't care about the average consumer, I care about me AND I'd like one device to rule them all and in the darkness bind them...
Re: Let's make everyone happy
Why bother with the candles?
Or the Faraday cage?
By "put" did you actually mean "push?"
Anyone have any idea what is going on with BOFH? Been a little long since last post and the category has been moved under "Data Center?!?!?"
(And whomever moved the content didn't exactly optomize the way the articles are being displayed from a chronological perspective).
*sobs* OH THE HUMANITY.
Yeah, Creepy and WTF?
Wax figures do = creepy.
AND - almost $200K???? You'd think Hong Kong would have heard of outsourcing. After all, artists are supposed to be hungry, tortured, social outcasts - not pampered, well-paid snoots.
Spitting distance is right!
<Initiate Crapple FanBoi Baiting Protocols>
Absolutely correct - given the opportunity I'd spit on an Apple product every day.
"THE RUNNING MAN with Lawyers AND CEOs...
Please. Please. PLEASE someone produce it?
Not sure this is a good example of rabid Page denialism...
I read the article and for once it didn't sound to me like Page was intentionally cherry picking and jump from point A to point C without basis. In fact, the statements: "Thus it could be that with the new stratospheric effect added to climate forecasts, periods of flat temperatures like the one seen over the past decade - or even of some cooling, perhaps - might be forecast accurately, presumably against a general long-term upward trend due to increased atmospheric carbon." sound down right rational.
From my perspective, if adding stratospheric effects improve models and help explain variance between model prediction and real world observations - well, isn't that the purpose of paying for atmospheric science research in the first place?
[Beer Icon because I wish it was Friday already]
Did I miss an article?
I continue to be amazed by Larry Page - it is impossible to you as anything but a denialist with an agenda. Why? You selectively report on stories. At the beginning of this article you reference the hubbub about Arctic ice extent (or record low as the case is being reported every where else). HOWEVER, you never actually reported on it for El Reg. Rather you report a story with an alternate slant and then marginally reference the topic du joir. How can that come across as anything but cherry picking? Larry - maybe you are right - maybe the climate issues we are seeing are nothing but normal variance, but you undermine the trustworthiness of your position by deliberate cherry picking - the very thing you acuse the "other side" of doing. You can't win an argument by ceding the moral high ground every chance you get.
Wind Power & Climate Change
Amongst all the "chatter" about 48% vs. 50% and today vs 2030 in this discussion board, what I didn't see was the observation that if we are indeed concerned about climate warming (anthropomorphic or not) and harnessing wind power has the potential for a cooling effect... well maybe we should actually be trying for wind power as an climate offset.
I have this vision of an oscilating control loop with nasty overshoot. We're getting too warm, crank of the wind power... crap it's getting too cold, crank of the fossil fuels... crap...
Re: Datasets measured in decades.
Based on that logic and your statement "Climate Scientists do not draw conclusions using a dataset measured in decades," we could never take any action on anything climate related unless a 100 to 200 year trend was indicated. That position is demonstrably false - e.g.: CFCs and Ozone depletion.
Datasets measured in decades.
While I agree with your point in general, I have to observe that it might warrant concern that sea rise has been accelerating in the past 20 years and weather variability appears to have increased as well. So while looking at the Earths climate over decades seems silly based on the overall age of the Earth - we humans who define our lives over the span of just a few decades might actually want draw a few conclusions....
How is this a "Leak"
"Samsung has enraged the US judge overseeing its patent battle with Apple with its leak to reporters of evidence she had previously banned from court."
""I want to know who drafted the press release, who authorised it, who released it and I want a declaration from Mr Quinn [on] what his role was," she said, giving Samsung until 9.00 PDT (17.00 BST) on Wednesday to answer her."
Uhhhh, how/why would El Reg construe a press release as a "leak?" I know I'm probably splitting hairs, but in my vernacular a "leak" is something that is passed through back channels. A press release is hardly a back channel.
I'll also observe that based on the information presented in the article (which of course could be incomplete information) it sounds like this Judge is being a might bit disingenuous - could Apple not be granted additional time to respond to the "new evidence" that Samsung would like to bring forward regarding the F700. It isn't like this is an hour before closing arguments - this is the beginning of the trial AND it very much sounds like the design of the F700 could be right at the heart of the plaintiff's (Crapple) complaints against defendent (Sam'sHung).
Re: This is why...
If I read this http://www.skyhookwireless.com/howitworks/faq.php correctly, the do not share personal data bit would get bypassed. Even with Wifi, GPS, and network tracking off, Skyhook would be determining your location based on its database of base stations and the base stations your phone is seeing. I interpret that as if this was on your phone, it would be bypassing the entries you made on the Do not share personal data buttons from your phone's OS...
Re: Evisceration Request
Now who couldn't get behind that. Actually, I'd love to see a Zuckerburg vs. Balmer cage match (to the death). (Or preferably to the deathS).
On this side of the pond...
Hmm if I were a Libertarian, I'd say this was a perfectly legitimate function of the free enterprise system right?
Of course I'm not a Libertarian and I see things like this as perfect examples of why we actually have a (albietly poorly) regulated market.
What's the best statement of mock surprise?
Does anyone else read stories like this and not think to themselves "Where exactly is the NEWS in this article?" I believe that even ostriches with their heads firmly entrenched in soil would be unsurprised by the data reported here. Oh great and wonderous prognosticators lend me your wisdom.... </sarcasm>
"I'd argue there's still everything to play for, and the Pro version in particular could be on an awful lot of executive shopping lists this Christmas as it bridges the gap between iPad's consumption bias and a laptop's productivity focus. Just maybe, the one's who've learned from history are Microsoft..."
Exactly - iPad is a toy most of the time - if you want to do real work, you still have to go grab your laptop - AND if a another account manager in the company I work for bitches that one of the proposal engineers has screwed up a proposal BECAUSE the idiot AM is looking at it on an iPad - well I'm sorry but consumer grade isn't about productivity. With the Intel version, M$ appears to be making a play for people like myself that can't use an iPad for work because it doesn't have the HP or the functionality I need. Success for them in that venture is yet to be determined, but 4 downvotes shows some very short-sighted people - or sad little fanboi rate-atards....
Re: Only partial picture
"One very significant argument is that our human bodies are simply not evolved into consuming the amount of meat products, included in the western mans diet nowdays. For thousands of years (actually until 100 or 200 years ago) the level of meat consumption was much less that the present one in the western world thus a reduction in meet consumption will also have a personal positive health effect."
I'm reminded of the picture of the 50 year old vegan who looks like a troll and the 50 year old chef who loves butter, eggs, meats, & cheeses and looks like quite the hot dish on her own. What is a "personal postiive health effect" for one, might not be for another. In truth if you really want to improve the health of the typical modern human dump the "fortified flour products," corn syrup derivatives, etc. that completely screw up a modern human's insulin levels.
With regard to protein consumption specifically, I'll observe that the average height, size, etc. of the modern human is significantly larger than even just a few hundred years ago - it may be that protein consumption of a few hundred years ago wasn't as adequate to a positive health effect as one might assume on face value.
Mr. Page is lamely (intentionally?) obtuse and ethically bankrupt.
Ignore Mr. Pages spin and just go read the article. Basically, the analysis says personality type plays into skepticism more than education. I'd chalk that one up to a no-brainer. Selfish bastards are selfish and don't want to hear anything that would imply they have to do something that is contrary to their personal preferences. Those of the overtly caring nature desire to save the world regardless of whether it needs saving or not. Or to put it another way, we are more animal than intellectual - go figure / <begin surprise>
(I thought about a title of "Lews Page is a Tool," but that seemed to be over-played).
I sure am glad
that with the decades-long trends of declining sunspot activity and other indicators predicting a Maunder minimum that we are seeing similar complimentary trends in recorded temperatures. (http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/08/11600220-12-month-stretch-ending-in-april-is-warmest-on-record-noaa-says?lite) Definitely very glad there - I mean if the temperatures weren't "dropping" along with the sunspot activitiy that might imply the potential that there are other factors involved in climatology than just the Sun. Nah that would be crazy time though - the contents of the atmosphere being heated by said Sun could never impact the temperature measured.
Sherlock because he'd definitely agree with your lucid, deductive skills Lewis.
"In particular the idea that the planet can expect a lengthy cool period until 2100 or beyond would tend to undermine the War On Carbon, and any suggestion that solar variability is as big a factor in climate as carbon emissions leads to intense hostility from many career climate scientists and large sections of the media (as we know well here at the Reg)."
Me thinks Mr. Page should actually read his referenced article ("Guardian super-blogger flames Reg boffinry desk"). Or to put it another way, I read the referenced article and I can't decide if Lewis is or isn't aware that he is deliberately misrepresenting what Robbins appeared to be saying? Is this tunnel vision, a poor grasp of the English language, or intentional flamery? I mean if the scientist who wrote the paper you are referencing as proof of your position says that your position misrepresents the research, how does one reasonably go back and blame the guy calling you out for it? So if that is the best example you can pull out to validate your assertation that all the evil climatologists are chagrined by the assumption that the sun impacts the climate... well I guess I'll just go with "nice try."
"GO" because I really wish you'd go back and try again. I'd have added BEER too because you make me want to go drink, but I can only pick one.
I suppose ocean ecology isn't important
Throughout the comment thread I've seen: "What does one do with the brine by product?" and generally the responses have been "pump it back in the ocean."
I'm guessing the fact that concentrated brine reduces oxygen levels in the surrouding ocean water isn't overly important. Similarly, the fact that most aquatic species are pretty highly adapted to specific ranges of water salinity - ranges which are disturbed by the return of high salinity water - isn't of particular import either.
There are reasons that most desalination plants require extraordinary environmental studies prior to approval - and it isn't just because government employees are paid to impeded progress. One desal plant in an area might be sustainable - as you extract larger amounts out of estuaries - even large ones like the Thames you reach a critical point where the local ecology cannot withstand the impact.
Mayhaps, a more rational concept might be a mixture of desal, re-use, and conservation? Nah, because at least two of those would require some level of personal responsibility and / or modification of behavior.
Unhappy face because I've actually worked in the water / wastewater industry and know there isn't a simple, singular panacea that is ignored because silly greenies just don't want to be practical...
Some reading is sometimes worse than no reading...
"Is this why the Himalayan glaciers are also going in the opposite direction to the doomsayers' predictions?"
"They are. You need to read more."
It helps if YOU read the article - not "the Himilayahs" - rather the "Karakoram mountain range," which depending on your perspective / definition of "the Himilayahs" is either a part of the greater Himilayahs a general concept or is not part of the Himilayahs range...
Or to put it another way generalizing Karakoram as the Himilayahs would be like observing that it is raining in London and saying that it is rainy in Europe. It is in fact rainy in part of Europe, but may or not be raining in all of Europe...
Re: Do we need new scientists?
Your weather forecast argument is well known and easily demonstrably false argument because climatology and weather forecasting are only tenuously related. Climatology is a macro scale science and weather forecasting is a micro scale science. The impact of minute changes on a weather predicition can be large (The layman's butterfly/chaos effect), but small changes in a microclimate aren't necessarily that important in a macro scale analysis because it is averaged in with so much other information. That is the reason that Larry is so disingenious in his play up of this particular article. The surface area being studied is a micro environment within even just the himlalayas...
Oh and regarding your 70s statement. Also demonstrably false.... Here's a quote easily found via ye' ole' Google.
"Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends."
Or to put it another way, as the science of climatology, the data available, and associated computing power has advanced climate scientists have evolved their perspectives into a general agreement vs. a diversity of positions 30 years ago. And if your math is a litlte rusty.. 7 out of a sample set of 71 papers is just under 10% in active support of cooling. Denialists make a lot of arguments, some of them are valid and constructive. The "in the 70s climatologists believed in global cooling" argument is neither.
Re: Do we need new scientists?
If you are a layman and 99% of the scientists in a particular field support a particular position, but you continue to remain unconvinced... well, I don't think it is new scientists that you need.
What I love...
"There are some problems with your post.
The post is required, and must contain letters."
OK, the above isn't actually what I love, but it does make me snicker a little. What I love is that I've done some reading (unrelated to this article) on the preparation that a number of northern hemisphere militaries have been making in preparation of a warmer arctic and the likely oil & gas races to come as the region warms. Now obviously, that isn't a "proof" that the Artic region actually is warming. However, I'll call it a "disproof" of a vast government conspiracy to charge offset taxes for no reason. It would appear that said goverments actually believe the climate change data...
Of course if the warming data was actually accurate, I suspect that would hardly be an inconvenient truth for our dear author - his rabid fanatacism would appear to allow him to cherry pick and gloss over details at will for the proof of his point. Besides, actual contribution to the discussion would likely require someone with a potentially more netural viewpoint on this topic and who would actually expect that from a purported journalist.
A lexicon containing nicknames and definitions is required.
While reading this article, I noted that while I have been reading El Reg for years the newb might be a little confuzled by El Reg's "British" propensity to establish nicknames for everything. I find it endearing, but maybe a lexicon should be established - maybe call it The Rexicon or The Regicon or The Bloody Freaking Primer for Humor-Deficient, Ignorant Residents Across the Pond. (Yes, I'm American.)
(e.g.: "Chocolate Factory" = A large marketing firm manned by oompa loompas and founded by lifestyle partners Larry and Sergey for the express purpose of collecting every personally identifiable and marketable detail about all residents of Earth. Sometimes refered to as Google).
Is it possible we could change the fruity nickname to Crapple? Why? Well because I just like saying it.
Ding Dong the Wicked Wimax is dead.
As a "user" (scratch that - make it "non-user") of Sprint / Windstream's crap WiMax product, I can't wait to see it die. "Non-user" in that I can't even run my HTC EVO phone on "4G" (WiMax) for more than about 20 minutes on a full battery. Oh and that assumes that I'm at full signal strength on that 4G signal - If I'm not then its slower than the 3G network. WTF???
Compare to my wife whose work mobile is on Verizon LTE - runs all day connected to 4G no worries and is zippy enough that we haven't even bothered to configure hers to access the home WiFi.
Watermarks should be insulting
I like Mondo's watermarks suggestion - and those watermarks should be appropriately insulting. e.g.: "ZUCKERBURG HAS A SMALL UNIT." <--I'd make a comment about Zuckerburg being an ad-whore, but I'm not sure that would actually be deemed an insult for Facebook.
In fact, I know that Facebook makes money off of advertising, but seriously there is a point where you begin to vote with your feet. I almost never even bother to post to Facebook anymore because they continue to ratchet up the "let's make the experience even more annoyingly manipulated." The only reason I even touch it anymore is because too many of my "friends" (think high school sheeple that I enjoy watching sink further) aren't competent to communicate via alternate medium.
Observation 1: This sounds like a situation where the caching/bandwidth was inadequate post failure.
Obvservation 2: RIM's Blackberry products suck. errrr -strike that- RIM's BB products appear less broadly functional and exciting when compared to Apple and Android product competition.
Observation 3: Prior to the most recent outage, RIM was loosing an astounding number of customers per month.
Result: If RIM just waits a little bit longer, there won't be any need to add capacity to accomodate 1 because the resource requirements will have significantly reduced due to 2 & 3.
(Just trying to help...)
What I get.
I pretty much agree with all of your post and only marginally disagree with the "people are giving their information away" bit.
Here's my analogy: I could leave my (nice) car parked on the street, unlocked, windows down, keys in the ignition, etc. For all intents and purposes I'm practically "asking for it to get taken," but it would still be considered theft if you drove it to your home (without asking). Everybody might rightfully label me a dumb @$$, but my car would still have been classified as stolen.
In my opinion there is really no difference here. E-mails and other digital content, while inherently insecure (like leaving your car unsecured), are still generally intended to be private by the author. Yes, data transmitted to/from an unencrypted WAP is inherritenly insecure and it is patently dumb to think you data won't get stolen. However, that doesn't change the illegallity of taking that data without permission.
"Do no evil" Malarky...
Paris because she hasn't gotten much play recently.
Mean Titles Suck
"Google Docs is less feature rich than Microsoft Office"
--Based on my limited experience with brower based exiting of Google Docs spreadsheets verses Excel.... That would be an ummmmmmmmm..... Understatement.
"offline is a problem"
--Perhaps the more appropirate statement would be "not possible" don't you think?
I'm as happy as the next guy that someone is challenging M$ and thus forcing innovation (e.g.: Amazing how much better IE has started getting again after the period of non-competitive stagnation). Similarly, I understand the cloud is a paradygm shift and that the associated toools will improve/evolve. However, the simplistic tool that is Google Doc's spreadsheets is so limited as to be laughable for complicated spreadsheets. (Or is the "paid" Google version just that much more feature rich?) Here's a very simple example: "Paste Special - Formulas" - You have "Paste Values" and "Paste Format," but no Paste Formulas??? To me that is a glaringly obvious lack that should never have been left out in the first place.
Fortunately, it will probably improve over time.
- It's true, the START MENU is coming BACK to Windows 8, hiss sources
- iSPY: Apple Stores switch on iBeacon phone sniff spy system
- Pic NASA Mars tank Curiosity rolls on old WET PATCH, sighs, sniffs for life signs
- How UK air traffic control system was caught asleep on the job
- Google embiggens its fat vid pipe Chromecast with TEN new supported apps