We've used WMC for nearly a decade in our house and it's been excellent: rock solid and dead simple. I have, from time to time, tried out alternatives and it's only now that I'd be prepared to say I've found a plausible replacement: Plex + Kodi + PVR software -- and even that is a country mile away from the out-of-the-box simplicity and elegance of WMC.
My politics, such as they are, are slightly to the other side of the line than most of the people in my Facebook contacts. A good number of those contacts are prone to posting what seem to me to be quite biased, divisive articles essentially preaching the moral superiority of the choir to the choir. My preferred style of engagement is to ask questions rather than assert "truths" and I try to steer clear of speculation on motive, appeals to authority, and all those rhetorical cop-outs. When I try to engage people on this stuff, the result is often quite hostile and sometimes personal. This makes me suspect that many people posting these things aren't really looking for debate, they're just looking for approval from their group. It would save me a lot of grief if Facebook provided a flag so people could indicate what kind of responses they're looking for when they post these things.
Having said all that, I find pretty much the same thing here on Slashdot and on most on-line fora. I just don't get the impression that many people see debate as a constructive way of testing one's beliefs and ideas.
I've been using WP for about five years now and my experience aligns with JawzX, not yours. They're rock solid phones I only have to restart once in a blue moon. I've had a Samsung and two lumias over this time and they've been equally good.
If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. There's no point in being a damn fool about it.
W. C. Fields
"After all, the chief advantages of C# isn't really C#, but the
You can't be serious! C is *substantially* lower-level than C#; you should only use C as a portable assembly language. I've spent decades writing assembly, C, and higher level languages and I'd pick C# over C in an eyeblink for anything that doesn't require access to the bare metal (well, personally I'd pick a functional language, but these days I work in industry...)
own some MS stock there, shill-boy?
Oooh, clever! Go on, call him a denialist, too -- you know you want to.
I think I've broken the Slashdot code! 'Insightful' must mean, 'agrees with my prejudices'.
Erm, if you're only exposed to "concensus" views and around the edges you get sympathetic nutcases like Lewandowsky claiming anyone who disagrees is a fantasist with a mental problem (oh, the sweet irony), aren't you in exactly the position you are concerned about?
Climate models are currently, at best, when treated as an ensemble (if you buy that as legitimate), skirting along the p 0.05 level of significance in the validation period.
Pointing this out is considered trolling -- it probably offends some religious sensibilities.
Tightening the threshold as the article suggests would mean the model results are not "significant" (i.e., not reasonably distinguishable from natural variation -- note that I am not a "denier" and that I do accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas etc. etc.; I am however hugely skeptical of most climate and environmental science that I have investigated).
Is the author mad? p < 0.05 would completely invalidate climate models! That simply can't be true, ergo p >= 0.05 is absolutely necessary in (post-normal) science.
Seconded: I've used Shipito several times and their service has been first class.
Your post can only have been modded down by people who "know the truth" without being in posession of the facts: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2012/11/normalized-us-hurricane-damage-1900.html
Let me precis this argument:
(1) The moderation scheme here essentially filters out postings that disagree with the "group-think."
(2) Commenters here are "unusually intelligent" and they define the group-think.
(3) Therefore if you disagree with the group-think, you are probably not "unusually intelligent" (and hence your opinion is probably not worthy of consideration; you belong with the trolls and drunkards).
The problem is step (2), which is a lot of self-serving bollocks. I think the suggestion that Slashdot moderation fosters group-think is on the money.
I have to disagree. Before I go to a heap of effort reproducing your experiment, I want to check that the analysis you ran was the one you described in your paper. After I've convinced myself that you haven't made a mistake here, I may then go and try your experiment on new data, hopefully thereby confirming or invalidating your claims. Indeed, by giving me access to your code you can't then claim that I have misunderstood you if I do obtain an invalidating result.
You need to look up Arrow's impossibility theorem: the problem is unavoidable.