Consider the way Anthony Watts was savaged for blatant idiocy by Media Matters in Climate Skeptic Proves Conclusively That He Knows How To Waste Time, Money, his opinion doesn't carry much weight. If you're going to tell us we should listen to someone, at least find somebody with more chops than this "Hey, they used video editing in a video!" moron.

Honestly, reading that made my opinion of Anthony Watts fall to a new low. It's really pathetic when someone claims "Fraud!" because video editing was used to make the thermometer readings actually legible.

Gartner gives the numbers the group contracting the study want.

"Our goal has always been to build the smartest, most secure, user-friendly mobile wallet experience"

Always or only since Apple released ApplePay?

Given the recent history of the Conservative Party of Canada and it's various flunkies it's probably safer to draw the opposite conclusion, namely that Harper clearly intends to abuse this to persecute his political enemies. After all, his political flunkies have already declared that environmentalists are essentially the same as terrorists on more than one occasion.

That's a new one, I hadn't read that lie before. This one isn't even believable at first glance. the hockey strick graph was a multi-proxy graph so it can't be based on one tree because if it was, it would be a single proxy graph. Furthermore there are now 14 (or more) different reconstructions that confirm the shape and conclusions of the first hockey stick graph using different methods and different proxies.

When you're going to lie to people, at least try to make it believable, ok?

I'm not attacking your character, because you really do believe in a paranoid fantasy. Also, I'm not trying to associate you with anti-vaxxers, you do that with your words and your behaviour.

The primary problem with what you've written is that none of it is true. If climate change research is based on "bad science" it should be trivial to discredit it, but it's not. Every time someone show some so-called "bad science" in climate change, it turns out they've greatly exaggerated what they've found. The real criticism of the hockey stick graph, for example, put a practically unnoticeable bump in the "handle" part of the graph, yet the statistician who found the error continues to claim he "disproved" the graph because he found that there was a better statistical regression method that should have been used instead that had no real impact on the graph on the conclusion drawn from it.

It's like trying to prove in a court of law that you shouldn't get a speeding ticket because you were going 100 mph over the speed limit, because in reality you were only doing 99.7 mph over the speed limit. Inconsequential.

You seem to have mistaken pity for fear. I think you're delusional. You think that thousands of scientists have been studying a subject for 30 years and yet not one of them have realized the truth that you know without ever having studied it at all. You're a text book case of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Contrary to what you believe, even the so-called skeptical scientists admit that global warming is true, that it's happening and that's it's man-made. They mostly disagree on how fast it will progress but personally, I don't think the evidence even supports their positions on that issue. They clutch at faint hopes (clouds or other mysterious negative feedbacks that have yet to be discovered) that things will not be as bad they likely will be. They cling to these hopes for many different reasons, such as money, faith, or publicity, but as the evidence accumulates the fringe theories are slowly being disproved one after another.

Pull your head out of your ass and you could enjoy the air too.

It really depends on the individual role, the team as a whole, and the individual being hired. I shouldn't have used numbers as people are entirely too hung up on it.

Really? Do you know how many talented developers who are completely and utterly 'dysfunctional' themselves and cause irrevocable damage to the team and its work output? It's not something I enjoy dealing with as much as helping people continue to grow and learn.

Depending on what need I'm trying to fill, I hire 90% for culture fit and 10% for technical ability. Most often, people can learn to improve their technical ability, especially b/c there is very rarely any single individual who can fill an open req 100%. That said, what I have found cannot be learned as well, is how to fit into an organization's culture.

Broad experience is great and I wholly support companies which are looking to add resources who possess such knowledge; however, broad experience can come with the price of not having enough targeted knowledge to bring deep-dive specifics to the mix.

The real question you should be asking is whether they can figure it out on their own if tasked with finding a solution to the problem. I guarantee you that most of those you have cast aside due to their lack of public-key cryptography knowledge would be able to do so while bringing you the specific knowledge you need straight out of their heads.

Honestly, if you interviewed me and I didn't know the answer to some mostly irrelevant question and told me that's why I didn't get the job, I would thank you for not hiring me to work with someone who doesn't know enough about being a hiring manager to do his job effectively.

Free vs. less free depends on how you orient your view. From the perspective of a company or programmer, GPLv3 is more restrictive. From the perspective of the code being licensed (the software being set free), GPLv3 is far more free. The GPL is a conscious choice by the copyright holder to allow the written software to be free to take on a life of its own, as it lives within the sets of releases and forks that descend from that original GPL release.

From what I recall, there isn't any actual requirement to redistribute unless you are supplying a device or service that uses it. A company may use GNU/Linux internally, even modify it to suit their needs, but if that company doesn't sell equipment based upon their changes (or a SaaS solution), then they needn't worry about the implications of the GPL.

So why with a Republican President (Bush) and a Republican Majority in Congress and the Senate, did government scientists still find that AGW was real?

To an outside observer there isn't much difference between you two. Both groups seem to believe that an evil cabal of scientists is trying to trick them. Why should we can which paranoid delusion you believe in?

To be fair and accurate, under the "novel" approach of counting every ballot accurately, Al Gore would have won. It certainly appears that the majority of the supreme court deliberately ran out the clock to allow their favoured candidate to the win the election by denying one of the basic tenets of most democratic voting systems: when the totals are close you recount the ballots to make sure the count is correct.

So it's actually the opposite of the situation you imagine, the voters actually awarded Al Gore the presidency but the supreme court appears to have deliberately thwarted the will of the electorate.