You must be german...

A mirror test for a dog is no easy feat. You are testing a non-dominant sense. Dogs rely a lot on smell, and there is no mirror for smell. So, on a mirror test, you either add a smell of another dog, or do nothing and let the "other dog" have no smell. One option induces the animal in error using its dominant sense, and the other creates a dissonance between senses. I wouldn't know how to interpret the result. If you go for the second option, you'll observe one of two results: either the animal reacts to the mirror, and he may as well be reacting to the sense dissonance and trying to solve it, or he does not, and it could mean that he passed the test or that he ignored the non-dominant sense. No valid result.

Obviously, I haven't read the mirror test studies on dogs, but I'd approach them with a grain of salt.

They also know the diff. between the TV and an image in a mirror, so you might want to rethink all that m- your so-called "science" is decades out of date.

Dogs have no cones in the retina, only rods, so: They see in black and white, as is widely known; and, more importantly, they see at a higher frequency. The result is that they see the flicker on the TV, making it definitely not lifelike. Oh, and the TV doesn't smell (thankfully), which for dogs is much more relevant than for us.

You can verify the higher operating frequency of rods, by looking at some fluorescent lamps from the corner of your eye. The center of the eye - the fovea - is very dense in cones, but the periphery is not, and rods are more common there. In many situations, you can't see a flicker of a device looking directly, but if you look using the vision edge it is very noticeable.

The funding effect is a hypothesis by climate sceptics who try to explain why there are no results that prove their point.

The climate is such a complex system that the mere fact that there so few hypothesis explaining global warming is itself a proof of hive-minded thinking processes.

Add this fact to your polarization of the subject using terms like "climate sceptics" (what the heck is a climate sceptic?), and you have just proven all my argumentation, without any help from me.

This is all irrelevant anyway because what you are doing is claiming that all these researchers are simply lying. Maybe the Nobel spurred some (a lot?) funding in research but from that to claiming that they are all lying or committing fraud is preposterous. And please don't mention the pathetic sham called "climategate".

I'm not proposing that all scientists are lying. I never stated that. I believe they act in good faith. Please don't put your words on my mouth.

The funding effect -- and the funding effect is undeniable, even if you request an argumentum ad autoritam -- is much more pernicious than plain old lying. Naturally, if you point every scientist towards proving a theory, and none towards disproving it, no one is finding faults in analysis, and everyone is reaching the same conclusion. Heck, it took two decades for the effects of civilization advance towards temperature measuring stations to be recognized and accounted for (even if in the end the conclusion is that warming is still happening).

My problem is not with number-tampering or such other accusations of the climategate. I ignore that. My problem is much more pervasive. Its with everyone stating that the sun orbits the earth, and anyone who is stating that the earth orbits the sun gets tarnished as lunatic.

This kind of scientific environment was as wrong five centuries ago as it is today.

On the other hand, when the warming models were seriously questioned, in the mid 00s, suddenly we weren't suffering from "Global Warming" anymore and started suffering from "Climate Change". See, your logic works both ways.

This is a serious issue, where opinions have become extreme, and where I really don't trust most participants (everyone is religious on the matter).

In the end, I think it's a shame that the global warming subject was hijacked by dumb^H^H^H^Hextremist ecologists, leading to good solutions being thrown out of the window [1], and stupid solutions being implemented (taxing carbon).

[1] No politician is discussing the possibility of mimicking the eruption at Mount Pinatubo which, because of being large and extremely recent, was very well studied. A global warming solution of this type costs 2.5Billion US$ (on a world scale, it's peanuts). Unfortunately, it's "messing with the planet" so it irks all kinds of ecologists. Newsflash: We mess with the planet from the day we're born. There's a decent article on the solution here http://www.livescience.com/901-scientist-inject-sulfur-air-battle-global-warming.html (shooting balloons with artillery is not the most efficient solution, the best one is a lightweight "hose", supported by balloons, which was already tested on a smaller scale, but the article gives the general idea).

Sorry, but the moment a Nobel was handed out based on global warming, research grants were definitely handed out preferably to those trying to prove global warming instead of disproving. That's where climate researchers' agenda comes from. It's not evil, just egoistic.

Oh, if you just want one link of a climatologist going all apocalyptic, that's easy enough: Hurricane Irene’s dangerous power can be traced to global warming

Now, please stop shouting and swearing. It does make you look like a dumbass.

I don't blame the amoled. I blame Sense, or whatever mix of software HTC puts in there. I like Sense, in terms of user interaction, but I made the effort of switching to CM7. Friends told me that battery life is much better. I just switched a week ago, and battery life does seem to be much higher (lower than double lifetime, but much higher than normal). A full work day, and I'd get home with the Desire at ~20% battery level. Now, the same conditions yield 50% battery level. Again, it is still a short sample, but I'm positively impressed.

Bad for who? The developers who make over 17x more money on the Apple app store than the Google app market

That argument is a double edged sword. If the developers make 17x more, and Apple does not have 17x the market, then consumers are hurting by paying 17x more for the same content. You know, fixed high prices is a sign of a non-efficient market.

I concur with the OP. You did follow the easiest route, and it does seem the feeble willed attitude. You both overestimate the work to maintain an Android install (similar to iOS), the existing malware (again, similar) and underestimate the evil that lurks in Apple's management of the market (removal of apps competing with Apple itself, namely).

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing", Edmund Burke

Now, you either: a) Disagree with Burke; b) Defend that Apple is not evil in any way; c) Defend that you can make business with Apple and still pressure towards betterment, or; d) Concede that you don't care and then it's perfectly OK to say fuck you all to those people that took the high road and are now expressing their feelings towards your position (but at least man up and really assume your position).

That said, as an American living in Europe, I admit to having a bit of a preference for the US model: it seems that the European mobile companies (or at least those I've used in Switzerland and Germany) charge significant rates for a mobile user to call a number on other domestic mobile carriers (on the order of $0.40 USD per minute in Switzerland depending on carrier, a bit less in Germany), and lower-but-still-steep rates (about $0.20-$0.30 USD per minute) to call landlines. Landline-to-mobile calls are about $0.35/minute.

Those are caused by "termination fees", which are fees charged by a telecom operator to any other operator that wants to call a subscriber on its network. They are unjustifiably high in Europe, and the root cause for the large roaming costs between EU countries. Fortunately, the European Commission has already put out a plan to almost eliminate these fees, gradually until, I believe, 2015. These are being passed into national law at EU countries, at each parliament's own rate.

I don't know how it is in Brazil, but in Europe it's indicated by the prefix on the phone number. Say, all numbers starting with 9 are mobile phone numbers, all numbers starting with 600 are added-value calls (think sex hot lines), and so on... In Europe the concept of paying for *receiving* calls sounds strange and frankly, ludicrous.

It is more flexible, can handle certain situations that cannot be handled elegantly in class-based inheritance

like what?

You have to try hard not to see good examples out there in use. The most common case is the prototype version of the Decorator pattern, seen in the uniformization of DOM support across browsers done by jQuery (and similar libraries). Decorator patterns with multiple-class subclassing gets ugly fast, and is trivial with JS.

Rubbish attitude - this is why software is regarded as a 'hobby' for inexperienced and generally poor developers - you're too busy 'learning something new' all the time and not focussing on getting things done.

You can't possibly be a top-notch developer. Any good coder out there is just a bit hampered by the use of a new language in a new project. Languages are easy. It's a couple of hours to grasp the syntax. APIs are more difficult, but then again, the slowness in developing against a new API wears off in a week of work.

Unless some new unknown paradigms are introduced, in the language and/or in the API, it's like dancing the tango to a new tune: You make it up, just like you made it up before.