* Posts by Zarko

6 publicly visible posts • joined 23 Apr 2014

China's Dalek-like robots fear only one terrifying nemesis: Stairs

Zarko

Microsoft did that already

As written in this 2014 article, Microsoft has very similar looking robots, with similar features:

http://www.psfk.com/2014/12/robot-security-guards-cruise-microsoft-campus.html

New submarine cable to connect Australia to Singapore

Zarko

New submarine cable to connect Australia to Singapore

Communication cable as a disguise, actually a secret plan to be able to pull Singapore closer if needed?

We're all really excited about new smartphones, laptops, tablets – said no one ever

Zarko

Re: Did they fail marketing?

Reminds me on a quote by Einstein:

“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”

'Look into my eyes: You are feeling very worried about the climate ... so worried'

Zarko

WTF, there is no consensus from scientists!?! What kind of comment is this: "thousands and thousands of scientists are producing papers thet <insert my viewpoint here>"? In the same way I can claim (but not with straight face) that "thousands and thousands of scientists" support unicorns. Here: "thousands and thousands of scientists are producing papers that confirm existance of unicorns". Done, next question.

Maybe you heard about NASA:

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ (with references at the bottom of the page)

or

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Problems with the Reg article itself, as I see it:

1. Saying that Professor XY wants to manipulate people to think that there is a man made climate change, does not mean that man made climate change does not exist (if I read the article correctly, that is the conclusion that the author is trying to manipulate readers to understand). The two statements (about the professor, and about the existance of man made climate change) are logicaly unrelated.

In the same way you can write for example:

- "Professor XY says that lizard people do not exist." Ha, isn't that exactly the kind of statement that a lizard person would want us to believe? Therefore lizard people exist. (again, if I understand the article correctly, this is the logic from the author)

2. As somebody already pointed out, polling general population on a scientific question is meaningless. The answer to any scientific question can be given only by science, and science is no democracy. After the answer is established, then can the general public be asked what to do about it, do they want to spend their tax money on it or not. (in my opinon even that is not so simple, because CO2 produced by one country affects all people of earth (if the GW theory is correct), but it would be too optimistic from me to expect majority of people in todays world to accept any inconvenience from them to reduce harm to others, unless it is punishable by law)

At the end, I see that a lot of people think that scientists are falsifying their research (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial ) in order to continue their projects, so they can continue receiving their salaries. Here I do not understand 2 things:

a) That point of view assumes that scientists are tweaking their results towards the conclusion that will bring them the most money. Since I think that Oil/Gas/Coal lobby has more money than Wind/Solar lobby, I would expect that those money greedy scientist, if anything, would be working for CO2 producers. (i admit i did not check how much money these industries are giving to influence politics and science, that is just my assumption)

b) if scientists were really just looking for some crisis to extort more research money, they could find dozens of other critical issues, and would leave climate because of so much resistance from various industries, just to make their life easier. Like bacterial resistance to antibiotics (superbugs), overfishing, polution of water (sea, rivers, lakes), deforrestation and destruction of soil... There are positive goals to research, not only crisis points, but looks like people think that scientists need to invent CRISIS in order to EXTORT money which, according to that logic, they would not otherwise receive.

Total disclosure: as I studied science, my strong opinion is that the the arguments coming from scientists are correct, and therefore I agree that there is a man made rising temperature. I am not 100% sure how it will end (it might make fantastic climate for trees, which will grow like crazy, and soak all extra CO2, acting like negative feedback), but I have a feeling that it will not end up well.

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/08/28/how-would-you-figure-out-whether-global-warming-is-real-part-1/

REVEALED: Google's proposed indie music-killing contract terms

Zarko

> They do not have to sign.

Or, Google could make their own music! After a day of coding in Mountain View, go to a studio and record some music.

Got Windows 8.1 Update yet? Get ready for YET ANOTHER ONE – rumor

Zarko
Holmes

Makes sense for Microsoft

In my opinion, publishing free version of Windows Cloud makes sense from MS perspective. The reason is competition from Apple and Chrome OS.

Now when Windows is relatively well adapted for various devices, they will release free version for basic standalone PC work + Tablet-like devices, which can also connect to MS cloud services - Bing, Outlook Email, Cloud Drive, XBox/Films, Write, Office Cloud... They are trying to do the same thing that Google did with Android - use free OS to drive traffic to their services where they can collect information about users to use for advertisements. And deny that share of users from other OSes.

On the other hand, power users, like for example SW developers, they will still have to buy "normal" Windows in order to be able to install Visual Studio, SQL Server and other tools.