To which measurements are you referring? Ground station measurements? Satellite measurements? Tree ring measurements? Other proxies?
Because none of those seem to agree on what's exactly happening with the global temperature. By some measurements, it hasn't risen at all in over a decade.
(and yes, they point to at least some, varying amount of warming that's occurred in the past century, but as the climate is never stationary, that's not necessarily something to worry about)
I'm not against data (though in the case of climate science, much of said data lacks accuracy, precision, or both), I merely question the methodology used in most cases, the selective use of data (specifically, ignoring data which disagrees with the apparently pre-arrived at conclusion), and the conclusions reached when poor data and poorer methods were used.
Your use of the word "denialists" seems to indicate you have a strongly-held belief, which makes reasonable argument impossible. Thus, we cannot explore tree ring data and atmospheric data which contradict ground station data, nor can we discuss ice core data, which is wholly lacking in the requisite precision to compare year-over-year, decade-over-decade, or even century-over-century values for either temperature or atmospheric composition. We cannot rationally debate the varying degrees of inaccuracy introduced into ground station data prior to the wide-scale deployment of computerized, standardized measurement. There are a whole host of perfectly valid issues with current data collection, methodologies, modeling techniques, and other aspects of climatology that become off limits the moment it becomes a topic of belief rather than a topic of rational discussion and debate.
I'm neither a religious zealot nor an oil company shill. I'm a scientifically minded, well informed individual whose only belief is that good science leads to truth. That I take issue with various aspects of modern climatology should not lead anyone to the conclusion that I'm the one who's somehow closed to a given thinking. Rather, it should lead one to consider whether those issues are valid and whether the popular way of thinking is actually based on good science. I'm of the opinion that much of the current work in climatology is based on a house of cards. I also recognize that poor data and poor methods sometimes still wind up leading to some truth. As such, I neither support nor reject the popular thinking on climate change as it relates to human beings' effects thereon. I do most certainly reject the idea that any of this is conclusive or that it's based on good science.
It isn't, and that doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong, either.
That said, I think most environmentalists are making the wrong argument. Rather than trying to convince the world that driving a car is destroying the planet, focus on the obvious, visible, irrefutable evidence we have of local environmental damage caused by human beings. Find me one AGW skeptic who doesn't think coal slurry and smog are real threats to the local environment and the humans who inhabit it. Find me one single AGW skeptic who doesn't think that fossil fuels are a limited resource which is becoming increasingly expensive and difficult to extract. There are plenty of angles to approach this where nearly everyone will agree, allowing progress to be made.
What I've found, however, is that many who hold firm belief in AGW demand all others also believe. This strikes me as religious zealotry; not evidence of good science. I see some (yet far less) of this from supporters of the Theory of Evolution (of which I am one). However, far more often, for supporters of the ToE, there's a genuine attempt to discuss specific complaints or questions. There's also plenty of specific, reproducible scientific evidence they're able to cite. This all seems quite absent anytime someone questions AGW dogma which leads me to think that perhaps there's less confidence in the science behind AGW than there is confidence in the groupthink of its non-scientist supporters.
I suspect given that she was new to blogging, that like all new people working with those sorts of web applications, 1, 2 and possibly 4, and 5 were possibly just test posts figuring out how to make certain things work and not intended for public consumption.
I think few new sites starting out on a new CMS manage to preserve exact sequential numbering of new articles right from 1 for precisely this reason.
I don't disagree that the decreased battery life occured for good reason - you were getting a larger colour screen and so forth, but even if the argument was that battery relative to efficiency of what the device does (rather than simple battery duration) is the argument I'm not terribly convinced the iPhone was in any way ahead here, things like the N95 had much better battery life still and were more powerful devices.
Apple had a lot of problems with batteries for quite some time, all the way upto and including the 3GS they couldn't get the technology quite so well pinned down as their competitors (though there wasn't much in it compared to other similarly priced smartphones with similar capacity batteries), so despite all the changes the iPhone brought to the market I can't see any convincing argument that improvements in battery life or efficiency was one of those things.
It would've always been difficult for Apple to be a leader in the battery usage in smartphones in part because things like Series 60 had been so better optimised for power over so many more years. Don't get me wrong, Series 60 was shit, but it did allow equally powerful devices to be more efficient than iOS (or Android) at the time. The same was always fairly true for Blackberry, they had battery efficiency nailed down far more tightly than any of the new entrants at the time (Google and Apple) did on their devices.
Again this isn't to belittle Apple, the gains in what the device could do and the way it worked more than made up for any battery deficiencies (especially as most people were happy to do what I do and charge every night regardless) but I don't think they can really be credited with any battery improvements by any metric!
It's the same with the Jamie Bulger killers, there's an injunction on identifying them, and in fact, claiming a picture of some random person of them is them is a breach of the injunction. Theoretically I believe even if you draw a stick man and name it as Jamie Bulger's killer then you're breaching the injunction it's that stupid.
Recently two people in the UK broke the injunction and the judge felt the need to remind us that there's a global injunction on identifying them.
I'm just waiting for someone overseas to make a complete and utter mockery of that arrogant suggestion that the judge has the power to enforce such an injunction worldwide.
"The Gateway Pundit" the name pretty much makes clear this is NOT objective news
What was that intellectual coward? Afraid of looking at a website that doesn't fit your view point? That's okay. The story itself was in the daily mail, and it was reported to parliament, by in an independent body, as to the massive failings of the NHS in the UK. Oh and there were protests, they simply weren't covered in the media in either Canada, the US, or most of Europe. Not forgetting that this has been the subject policy of the NHS since the 70's.
I know someone personally (not a friend, but went to school with them) who hit and killed someone with his car driving 60mph in a 30mph zone.
Not a single day spent in prison.
So to be fair, you can do things that are, in the grand scheme of things much more awful, and still get a much lighter sentence.
They could still be extradited to the US. That could still happen.
Hopefully not given that they've been charged, found guilty and sentenced here already.
I wont hold my breathe though, I bet this isn't the end for them knowing how badly broken our extradition agreement with the US is.
Nationalized healthcare solves this problem. For-profit corporations have no business in health insurance.
You're welcome to come to Canada or take a trip to the UK anytime you want to see the "benefits" of not-for-profit healthcare. Let me know when you feel like waiting a month or so for a MRI or longer, unless it's serious. Then it might only be 3-4 days, of and of course the UK actually *does* have death panels. Though technically they're not supposed to suggest people simply die off unless they're exceptionally infirm. They also did it to infants.
"Jobs just designed the pain out of the iPhone. Long battery life."
What? I'm not disagreeing with everything else you said, but the iPhone brought in an era of phones that needed charging every night, when before they, including smartphones, lasted a week.
I never saw this as a problem as I always habitually put my phone on charge every night anyway, but I don't see how the iPhone brought in long battery life, it did the complete opposite, it took battery life from a norm of 5 - 10 days down to 1 - 2 days.
"Dude, all you've done is pulled a bunch of numbers out of your ass, and then constructed an argument on it."
Except I provided a source for all my numbers, which is more than can be said for your incoherent rants and conspiracy theories. At least the numbers I provided are verifiable, I'm sorry if the facts conflict with your world view.
"Now I appreciate that maybe Fox News has had a bad impact on your ability to construct a proper argument"
Except I don't watch Fox News because as I said, I'm not American, and we don't have that drivel here. We have proper news outlets like the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 news.
"but rather than address the specific points, I'll just throw out a couple key principles that are well-established and then hit the conclusion."
In other words, "I'll do what I accused you of and make shit up and drawn a conclusion on the shit I made up".
"First, if you increase labor, and demand remains constant, the price will drop. This is the law of supply and demand. All of your quoting of numbers and beating of chest tries to cover up the fact that more workers means lower wages, all other things being equal. It's an escapable economic truth."
Which is great for your argument if you ignore the fact that demand hasn't remained constant and the price hasn't dropped. Unfortunately, ignoring reality doesn't help your case.
"Here's some global data regarding wages. I'm not going to make it too easy for you by linking in the exact table you need to look at... but if you want to educate yourself instead of screaming profanities... I'd start there."
In other words "I'm going to link to an arbitrary site, and not point to anything particular and pretend this adds validity to my argument in some unknown way". I could see nothing specific about developer wages there which is what we're talking about, and given that developer wages haven't followed the average trend I can only guess this is a desperate attempt by you to muddy the waters and make the false inference that if average wages have dropped, so must have developer wages. If you can't even be bothered to point out what it is you believe is damning evidence for your case then I'm certainly not going to try and dig for and guess what you think that might be given that I've already proven your existing points wrong with verifiable facts and figures.
I offered you a pretty detailed and verifiable set of facts and figures as to why the US is still full of developer opportunities and you opted to ignore it, pretend it's not real, and claw desperately for misdirection. It's okay I get it, you really are beyond help, the fact you "educate yourself instead of screaming profanities" despite there being no profanities in my comment is evidence enough that there isn't something quite right in your head because if you can't read a reasoned post with verifiable facts without seeing profanities where there are none then you obviously need professional help.
Good luck wallowing in your pit of despair, you obviously want to keep blaming everyone but yourself, but don't be surprised when nothing changes for you. You'll never find a solution when you refuse to even acknowledge the problem - you.
The major occupation in a post scarcity (of essential goods) society, is the creation of unique designer goods, which by their nature, cannot be mass produced.
A designer suit, made by a tailor.
A song, performed by a live talent.
A hand arranged bouquet of flowers.
An original hand painting.
Those sorts of things.
Since all your basic needs are met, you really don't HAVE to do anything. You CAN just be a couch potato, and I expect some people will do that. Hell, videogame deathmatch TV might become a popular thing! The idea here, is that what you would do, would be most profitable when it produces something the robots cannot make, (hand crafted is mutually exclusive to robot mass manufacture) that other people would want.
Things like ebay would explode with such limited run items.
Assuming that AIs with a rational personaity construct are in charge, everyone will have *needs* met, but not wants.
Fridge will have food, but not cobe beef.
People will have electricity, and running water, but not fancy recessed lighting nor a jaccuzzi.
This means that humans won't focus on making screws that get packaged with ikea furniture.
Instead, they will focus on making human comfort items for other humans to consume, to sate human desire.
Armani suits. Designer handbags. Novelty appliances. Etc.
The natural scarcity of something being hand made in a world of post scarcity commodity goods, will command high worth.
That is what people will do.