I was suspicious of the U.S. allegations that the North Korean government was behind it when the North Koreans denied it was them.
Yes, because the North Koreans are forthright and honest chaps, their statements are always unbiased and true...
That is also true about the US too, and their adamant allegations about another country have always turned out to be true...
We'd have had PS2 connectors, floppy drives, beige boxes, flaky suspend/resume, x86 BIOS, 32-bit processors, no built-in 3D acceleration, no built-in WiFi, 100mb ethernet, etc. for even LONGER than we did.
There is no evidence to suggest any of these at all. PCs were very customisable, so OEMs and users alike could spec systems the way they wanted. If they didn't want floppies, or wanted to add built-in WiFi then it was all possible (although on-board implementations of WiFi often still look to the system like PCI cards). The first version of 64-bit Windows was released two years before Apple started to add support to OS X.
Do you remember having to buy PCI-USB cards
I remember having USB connectors on my motherboard long before we had anything to plug into them (devices to plug in didn't appear on the market until they came out with version 1.1 of the standard that fixed a bunch of problems) and before Apple started using the connectors. It is hardly surprising that the connectors would appear on the PC first considering that the standard was developed by "Compaq, Digital Equipment Corporation, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, NEC, and Nortel" (according to Wikipedia). The difference was that they didn't throw out the old connectors (and so gradually moved to the new standard) rather than Apple's approach.
The thing about the "Apple model" is that there is less flexibility in the hardware. With PCs (and other systems) you could make the computers as you wanted them to be by using industry-standard components. Yes, Apple started using those components, but would they have ever done that without the PC to spur them on? Would they have ever had real multitasking without Unix and Windows shaming them into doing it?
Probably. Who knows? It really doesn't matter, since we can't change history to find out the answer.
You can say the same thing about the bots that have blindly accepted "experts" opinions.
I wouldn't call them deniers though, I would call them believers. However, just because someone simply believes what the scientists say does not actually make the scientists wrong, any more than having deniers simply deny those same scientists. The difference between the two groups is that at least the believers are in agreement with the people who spend their entire lives studying the science. Those who blindly reject expert opinion have nothing and nobody to back up their position other than other non-experts such as themselves.
Same can be said of just about anything Al Gore says, but he still attracts crowds of worshipers listening to his sermons, WHY?
Does he? The only time that I ever hear Al Gore mentioned is when a denier is seeking to attack AGW. If you shut up about him you would find that people are actually talking about what scientists are saying, and not what an ex-politician says.
Godwin's Law's purpose is to end a discussion once it reaches a non sensical level of hysteria.
I have addressed this point elsewhere, but while some people use Godwin's Law to say that an argument has gone on long enough once Hitler has been mentioned it is not the actual purpose of the law. It is merely an observation, and as such is still applicable in this discussion's context.
It is also very clear that the person who mentioned Godwin was clearly doing it to be amusing and was in no way attempting to stifle any conversation.
And as your cited quote said, its application to a discussion of other totalitarian regimes or ideologies is debatable. You may interpret it that way, but it does not actually make it part of Godwin's Law. Your interpretation may guide your usage of it, but you can't actually say that other people's usage is incorrect.
In any case, the reference to the law was purely a humorous statement, and really not worthy of this debate.
The new, improved, Godwin's Law is: "If anyone says anything about Nazis, I can shout 'Godwin's Law' and shut down the discussion".
That's not a new interpretation; that dates back to the 90s. But it also does not in any way defend the actions of Nazis as you claimed. It was merely (and generally humorously) used as an indication that a thread had exhausted all the valid arguments and had devolved to the old fall back line of the Hitler comparison.
As we have seen here, the original mention of Godwin's Law did not stop the postings here, and nor did it request the end of the discussion (although it has sidetracked it).
The only people who benefit from that are Nazis, because they can shut down any discussion about Nazis.
It does not shut anything down. The word "law" in this case does not refer to rule of law, but rather a universal principle. It is not a serious thing that has any real effect, and nor is it something that is ever really used when actually discussing the Nazis. It is used when something else is compared to them. I think that you would be hard pressed to find any examples of a discussion about Nazism actually being being stopped by the application of Godwin's Law.
Godwin's Law makes no reference to the aptness of the comparison to the Nazis or Hitler. Here is the law as stated by Wikipedia:
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." - that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism.
'Godwin's Law' in the idiotic modern interpretation, is primarily used to defend the actions of Nazis.
The only problem with that argument is that it flies in the face of the facts. Nobody defended the Nazis. Nobody said anything about wanting to murder all Jews. And as far as I am aware, the Nazis didn't implement surveillance on Internet traffic.
This was the correct usage of Godwin's Law, where a discussion that was completely unrelated to the Nazis was likened to that regime. I think that you have been a bit over-sensitive to the adage.
Why would I write to that, when anything it can do, can also be done by non-Microsoft controlled APIs, that are portable to more than just the three platforms they list?
Mono is available on more platforms that those listed, so they will presumably do the same for
Mono can be run on many software systems including Android, most Linux distributions, BSD, OS X, Windows, Solaris, and even some game consoles such as PlayStation 3, Wii, and Xbox 360.
It also later list iOS as a targeted platform (I don't know why the summary didn't mention it).
Wow! That's a pretty damning list. Now all you need to do is prove that they are in fact lies. The problem is, your list of lies contain lies of its own. And when it can be found that something was said that turned out to be incorrect, can you prove that those are lies as opposed to the results of early models that didn't have the sophistication of our current models? If you claim that someone is lying, then you are saying that they are attempting to deliberately mislead people.
Being wrong or making a mistake does not prove that deliberate misleading is going on, nor does a handful of claims invalidate the thousands of other claims that have been shown to be correct. Even the scientist who pointed out the mistake that the IPCC made about the glaciers still said that he believed that the errors shouldn't shake people's belief in climate science..
If you do believe that catching someone in a lie disproves what they are saying, what should we think about how you have misreported what people said? You claim that Al Gore said that "Polar ice caps would be ice free by 2010", but what he actually said was this:
Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.
So instead of the definitive claim that it would happen, he said that just some models predicted that there was just a chance that it COULD happen. A model being inaccurate does not constitute a lie. Misquoting someone to twist what they say into a lie, is actually a lie.
So did anyone really claim that there would be hurricanes more powerful than Katrina? It seems they did claim the number of hurricanes in the Atlantic that are as strong or stronger than Hurricane Katrina will increase twofold to sevenfold but that was for every 1 degree C increase, which hasn't happened the time of Katrina.
I'm getting bored, so I'll skip to the end. Your assertion that every single prediction of the IPCC from before 2007 is demonstrably wrong.
The Surface factory pays rent, taxes, electricity and utility. These are all indirect costs, and they are all specifically for Surface.
Does Microsoft own the factory, or do they outsource to a separate company? If they outsource then those indirect costs would already be passed on as a direct cost to Microsoft.
I agree with this, they said Vista would be the last 32bit Windows OS, then 7, then 8 and now apparently 10.
Who supposedly said this? It certainly wasn't Microsoft.
However I suppose they're trying to kill off 8 as quickly as possible.
No, the scheduled late-2015 release of Windows 10 will put it at the standard time frame for release dates. Look at the number of days between recent Windows versions: Vista: 996, Windows 7: 1100, Windows 8: 1091 (estimated). Every release some people claim that Microsoft are rushing out a new version, but this is only because they are comparing the OS lifespan to XP, which was artificially long.
Everyone on 8 and 8.1 is getting upgraded to 10, so it may as well be 8.2
No, that was just a silly rumour. There is no doubt that Microsoft will do a special upgrade deal just like they did for Windows 8. If they didn't make Windows 7 free after Vista, why would they do it this time around? Surely those people who really dislike the version of Windows that they are using will be more motivated to give Microsoft money to upgrade than others, so why wouldn't they take it?
I'm getting tired of hearing about how all life on Earth will end in a few years unless we vote for just one political party and their pet doomsday cult.
I'm sorry that you are getting tired of this, but in this case you can rejoice! Because nowhere in the article did they state such an absurd line.
There is no point making up quotes to get offended by when you could just comment on the actual story at hand. Your entire post has absolutely nothing to do with measuring the gravitational changes of melting ice.
In complete denial of the FACT that Antarctic sea ice is at the HIGHEST LEVEL in decades, these Global warming cult members keep spreading the blatantly false propaganda.
Does the expansion of sea ice mean that the total volume of sea and land ice has gone up? Does it even mean that the volume of sea ice has gone up or is it just being spread thin?
You have cherry-picked a single variable that has gone up and ignored the bigger picture, and then made the outrageous claim that it is the people who actually measure the total ice that are spreading false propaganda.
Answer one question: has the volume of land ice gone up or down? If the answer is down, why is it so unimportant for you to mention this inconvenient fact?
On second thoughts, we can ask an even easier question. Has the total volume of ice gone up or down? According to the article, the gravitational measurements show that it has gone down. Why are you in complete denial of this FACT?
The moon is made of green cheese. -- John Heywood
