I believe you missunderstood me or read only half of what I wrote - or I expressed myself poorly (or both). Your are basically saying the same thing as I do! A map can't tell you where a flooding will occure for sure, but you can say where the probability a flood will occur are higher, especially in the context of sea level rise. Combining elevation information with current flooding probability maps is a brilland idea to extrapolate the potential effects of sea level rise.

My comment was in response to the not-so-insightful comment "oh no, according to the map Niederland is completely flooded. The map must be wrong. The science must be wrong."

It is not wrong. It shows probabilites, just like I said in my first post and just as you mentionned in as well.

*you* (i give up - if at least beta had comment editing possibility... not even that.)

No map or prediction can tell your... (sorry for the poor proofreading. It's early -_-)

No map or prediction can't tell you where there is going to be flooding or not. Even without sea level rise. This is espcially true with heavy human intervention, like in the Netherlands. You can simply identify regions at risk and attemp to evaluate the flooding probabilties.

But is that really so surprising and unrealistic? It's not like floods are something unheard of in the Netherlands.

I consider someone turning to ridicule an action or person based on a obviously and willingly flawed logic a troll, that especially when it is wirtten in a tone like the one you use.

I tried to illustrate how flawed your logic is. I do not care about your opinion and I will never comment or judge an opinion here. But a flawed logic of false statement, I will. If I believe the facts your state are false, I will comment on it. And that is what I did.

Not being able to post on what I believe is a flawed statement and moderate at the same time, I allowed myself to express my opinion on my perception of your comment (seen as a troll comment), while still make a remark on the content of your post. From the moderation my comment got, I believe this approach did not come across well and I will refrain of doing it in the future.

know -_- *sigh*

No. That answer we already now... we're obviously modelling the question.

I don't know where your are pulling these definitions out. Did you come with those up yourself? Where's that normativ commity that qualifies what is a smartphone and not? Because last time I checked, the accepted understanding of what a smartphone (or smartwactch) are, are quite a bit broader. And if your think that the smart watches available in the last two decades limit themselfs to have PDA and calculators funktionalities, which were funcitonalities found in the '80, as I clearly mentionned I believe, you should go an read a bit about the history of smart watches.

That's absurd. Watch with higher funktionalities like calculator, PDA or so exist since the '80. There have been multiple models form a lot of different sources that have been released on regular basis. Some companies released a new model a year since 2000. For some reason there has been a recent hype on smart watches, mostly driven by rumors on nonexistent Apple products and by the Samsung Gear release. I wouldn't qualify a media hype on something that has already been there for decades and is well implanted as "everyone jumped on the smartwatch game". Especially when the overhyped media fail completely to talk about those models of smartwatches that are actually useful or inovative.

Apple is doing what they have been doing with the ipod, the iphone and many other product. They don't jump on the bandwagon just like you suggest it. They watch every one doing it, look where they fail (because they do) and see how they can market such a product in a way to be succesful. A lot of the inovation is more on the maketing and market study side than on the actual technique itself. And it works.

But for some reasons, people (you) seem to expect that Apple should make such breakthrough with every product release. Mind you, its mostly Apple's fault and their marketing approach that leads to this.

Ah yes! I had one of those. I loved my Casio calculator watch with biomedical sensoric, music and player and communication capabilties.(!)
Apple should also be ashamed to have released a cellphone 2007. Didn't Motorola already make cellphones like in the '70 and '80? I remember frying parts of my brain with one of those. There was Apple little late to the game as well it seems.

The total lack of inovation and success of Apple in the mobile industry and the currently brillant success of Motorola in this branch is true mirror of this I guess. Gosh, I bet things would be different if they had been the first ever to make mobile telephones. Then they would surely be at the top of the marked with their true innovation.

By the way, are your having fun with your Samsung phone today? oh, what do I hear? your were too busy trolling? Carry on.

My understanding was that there was no charge (or accusation) filed in Sweden. A compaint has been filed and he was wanted for interrogation over the filed complaint. Considering the deeper implications of travelling into Sweeden, I can understand his reluctance to do so, especially if he believes the complaint as no bases.

Under the circumstances, en interrogation in England is the best solution for every parties. If, following the interrogation, formal charges are layed and is is accused of rape, his situation will change anyway and probably won't have the choice to face the charges there, regardless where he is.

On the other hand, perhaps the users would start to read TFA submitted.

Quite honestly, my English is awful. But given that it is my third language, I do not feel bad about it. I would neverthless feel very bad about it if I was an Editor on a supposedly reputable site like Slashdot.

Have you a better source than the daily mail for that one?

Obviously. You have so much of it, that you can completely disregard obvious facts. That must be convenient.

It has a lot to do with the original article, which is unfortunately somewhat off track. The subject tackled are the important investments to ensure proper conditions for the winter competition. Sadly the article and the title used by slashdot are missleading, as they suggest these investements are made to transform a sub-tropical climate into a winter paradise. What so many people fail to understand is that the climate up in the mountains IS NOT the same as the one near the sea in the city of Sochi.

So what does it have to do with it? A lot.

What the poster of this article understood but you - and most likely the journalist behind the article - failed to understand is that the a large part of the investments are made to ensure that the proper conditions are met in the competition sites in the mountains (not in the sub-tropical paradise, mind you). The risk of having non-adequate conditions, and thus require the equipement and huge investment behind it - is obviously linked to the climate.

I do not believe Sochi - and the sites in the mountains in the direct neighbourhood - could ever garantee the right conditions, regardless of the outcome of the winter. Hence the large investements. The interesting catch is that many of the past Winter Olympic sites, which could garantee for those conditions, fall in the same category as Sochi due to climate change. This means that these sites would also need similar investments to hold such competition in the future.

But stick to your common sense, widely feed by ignorance and closed mindset.