Posts by vandenbudenmayer 29 publicly visible posts • joined 6 May 2010
Well, we've had two thirds of a foot rise in the last 130 years or so. If your great grand dad had known about that a century ago, you reckon he would have done something different back then? Tell Henry Ford to not build his cars, cause he'd contribute to 20 cm of sea level rise? Lol.
AC: Just wondering what you do when you get ill? Do you go to a GP, or do you choose who you think may be able to heal you best on what most conveniently chimes with your mindset?
Are you saying that because certain 'scientists' say it is so, therefore it must be so? Is that the crux of your brilliant argument? You go to your GP with a headache and he subscribes amputation of your leg, and you would go along with that, because, well, he is the GP, he knows his stuff.
Ooions: ...if in 20 years time the ice sheets are still there the scientists will be busy working out why the models and predictions were wrong and fielding nutters who say its all a fake.
Are you seriously saying that there might be a chance that 'the ice sheets' will be gone in 20 years?? Oh noes!
Do you even have a clue about how long it would take for the Greenland ice sheet to completely vanish for instance? Even if temperatures there would spike by another 3 degrees? 20 years, you reckon? Really? Try 1,000 years.
imanidiot: Water vapour DOES warm the earth. Not the lower atmospheric boundry layer, but slightly further up. Even in the sahara.
I'm talking about the earth. The EARTH. You know, that solid sphere under your feet? Are you being deliberately obtuse? The solid sphere warms the atmosphere above it. Not the other way round. Jesus Christ. Can you not read?
Michael 31: I was actually at the top of my Maths and Physics classes in fact. That's how I got my first class degree in Physics and PhD and how I have earned a living for the last 30 years. In fact I did so well the Queen gave me a medal!
I guess you've never come across argumentum ad verecundiam? Well done on getting a medal though Michael. At first I thought you were just an ordinary lunatic, now I realise my mistake. You're a certified one.
Michael 31: It is the water the vapour that warms the Earth by the additional 31 °C. Without the water vapour, this warming would not take place.
No dear Michael. The water vapour does NOT warm the earth. The earth warms the water vapour. Do you not see that? Why don't you go to the Sahara and find out what an environment without much water vapour is like?? Hint: it's very warm during the day! Another hint: it can be very cold during the night!
Is the dawn of understanding upon you yet? Or do I need to break it down further?
NomNuts: I'll point out one particularly important mistakes: He's wrong to claim that 2C global warming isn't unusual.
Thanks for pointing that one mistakes [sic] out and descending from your mount Olympus of knowledge and wisdom to hand us peasants the olive branch of enlightenment. We're not worthy.
Where the hell does the I'm-calling-everything-I-see-more-than-once-a-meme meme come from? Of course the greenhouse effect has been 'understood' for a long time as you say. This is not in dispute. Did I deny there is a greenhouse effect?
Are you claiming the effect of cyanide on the human body is similar to adding a bit of CO2 to the atmosphere? Great analogy. Did you have to think really hard to come up with that one? Poor diddums.
Water vapour content of the atmosphere can be as much as 4%. That's 100 times the amount of CO2 dear Michael.
And neither water vapour nor CO2 warm the earth at all. The earth is warmed by the sun, which in turn warms the atmosphere, so your triumphant statement '...it warms the Earth by 31 °C!' is blatant nonsense.
And no one disputes that CO2 contributes to the temperature of the lower parts of the atmosphere. It's the size of the increase in temperature caused by additional CO2 that we disagree on. We both know that it's not a linear relationship, but a logarithmic one. Perhaps it causes a degree centigrade of warming for each doubling, but probably less due to negative feedbacks if you ask me. You will disagree, and that's fine. The proof will be in the pudding!
I wasn't around in 1050, so I can't comment on your classroom songs. Surprised you can remember that far back.
Perhaps you have a slab of concrete in front of your Neanderthal-shaped head, but how you could think I was sceptical of sea level data is beyond me. And regarding your dramatical changing arctic, perhaps you should go live there? Should be nice and warm there soon if your 'signals' are correct.
Keep using those divining rods Michael. There must be water here!!
You want rational? CO2 is a harmless trace gas in our atmosphere currently at a level of around 0.04% by volume. You think it's rational that the earth's radiated heat absorbed by this minute amount of gas would lead to 'something to be concerned about'? The only thing to be concerned about here is your sanity, sir. You can spew all the massaged and abused 'data' you want, but facts are facts. Just look at satellite based measurements of sea level rise, which is about the only thing that says anything meaningful in this entire farce: 3mm per year. So yeah, seems the earth is warming a bit. No idea why. Perhaps CO2 has a little to do with it. Perhaps it's just the earth coming out of the little ice age. Who cares? You think that 3mm per year is a problem? Get rid of your car(s) then, abandon your heated home, stop shopping at Tesco's, sell your computer(s), and go live off the grid. Ciao. Nice to have met you, you lunatic.
Anyone who thinks that a harmless gas that has a concentration of less than 0.04% in the atmosphere would lead to catastrophic runaway climate warming is a fruitcake. End of story. I do understand the hype though. Governments love it. It makes them look good, it increases taxes and creates jobs. Education institutions love it, it creates new courses and revenue streams. The media love it, nothing better than a controversial subject to boost readership. And it obviously gives whole hordes of eco-loons a new found 'cause' to dedicate their pitiful lives to instead of concentrating on smoking doobies as they should be doing.
But don't expect rational people to fall for this nonsense. Go sell crazy somewhere else.
Sage did apply for a trademark on 'appstore' in 1998 and got it approved in 1999. The USPTO ruled that that trademark was abandoned in 2001.
In 2006 Salesforce applied for a trademark on 'AppStore', but later decided to abandon that term and stick with AppExchange after Benioff met with Steve Jobs, and went on to hand their trademark claim plus domain name (appstore.com) to Apple.
You reckon it's just coincidental that App consists of the first three letters of Apple? A company that places so much emphasis on the look and feel of their products and marketing just happened to choose the word App purely because of the fact that it's an abbreviation of application? Really?
And they are not saying 'There is an apple for that'. I didn't say that App is an abbreviation of Apple.
'App' refers to application, a piece of software that helps solve a problem. Note that games are generally not called apps.
'Store' is a place where things are stored, and (mostly in North America) also a word that in the civilised world is called a 'shop'.
So if you would like to set up an online business selling applications and games, I think the best generic term would be 'Software Shop'
I don't think it's silly at all for Apple to try to trademark App Store. They have put time, energy, labour, advertising, etc. all amounting to hundreds of millions of bucks worth of investment into the whole App Store idea. The name is part of that investment. Of course they want to protect it.
The article mentions two arguments against the possible trademark.
1) Apple wasn't the first to use the term. That may be so, but Apple are the first to use the name to market their products and file for trademark. That counts, not the first incidental use of the term. Properiatary rights in relation to trademarks are aquired through use in the market place and/or through trademark filing. No one else has done that before Apple
2) The term is generic and just describes the product. That would be true if they had called it Application Store or Software Outlet. App is not only an abbreviation of Application but obviously also a play on the word Apple.
I doubt they will be able to prevent anyone describing their software shop as 'an app store', but I would think they stand a good change of preventing others calling their outlet 'App Store', and that's what this is about, and it sounds pretty fair to me. If I started business in some sort of small and crude wooden building where I would sell pizzas, I might get away with writing something like 'come to our pizza hut', but I doubt that anyone would think it fair that I put a sign over the door saying 'Pizza Hut'. No?
Why does religion have to come into it? Certain products just have that little 'extra' that makes you want them. I guess it's a combination of outstanding design coupled with excellent performance. Perhaps the makers of these products have put a bit more love and care into them. Or maybe it's just clever branding. If it is, then it certainly works on me. Some of my fav's: Car = Ferrari, Motor bike = Ducati, Camera = Leica, Binoculars = Carl Zeiss, Cigar = Cohiba, Flashlight = Zweibrüder, Watch = Lange und Söhne, Wallet = Louis Vuitton, Pen = Caran d'Ache, Pocket Knife = Victorinox, Tent = de Waard, Computer = Mac.
Jobs has a vision, whatever that vision might be, and the man says 'no flash on my device'. Intuitively I understand why. You perhaps don't. Fair enough, don't buy the man's products then. End of story. Go be happy with your HP sauce slate, or wait a few years more and maybe Microsoft will have something for you. Jobs has once said 'Real artists ship', and that's exactly what he'll be doing while you are waiting.
Maybe you are being throttled? I find that torrent speeds have grown to unbelievable levels. When I download a movie it arrives within 15 minutes, almost always. Based on a size of around 700 meg. And that goes even for the more obscure files with less than 50 seeds. There really is no effort involved at all.
The title of the article is 'Apple demands public apology for iphone parody'. Nowhere have I seen any evidence of this demand. And it doesn't really make sense either. Yes, Degeneres apologises, but why? The more likely scenario is that the network bosses have asked her to do so, not because of any demand that Apple have made, but because they are scared of losing advertising revenue. If Apple really had asked for an apology, then you would not expect Degeneres to show the original parody again. So in other words, the whole article is nonsense. Comedian makes a parody, bosses are a bit worried about possible fallout, ask comedian to apologise, comedian apologises and makes it look like Apple asked for this apology so she doesn't look like a muppet.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
