Posts by Spyware

RIM BlackBerry PlayBook 7in tablet

How many apps do own on your PC vs your smartphone.

I like Apple hardware but I don't like iTunes. I am trying to stay away from any business model the requires me to pay usage fees for apps when I could get the same for free on my PC (except Netflix).

The fact that RIM's Playbook can play Flash solves that problem for me... It's just like browsing on my PC.

And if you have a cell phone and a 3G tablet... do you want to pay twice for a data plan? Cell Phone carriers charge exorbitant prices here in Canada. Just using one smartphone on the net for a few minutes will cost you several dollars (not pennies), so imagine if you use both. The BlackBerry Bridge allows you to use your phone's data plan with your Playbook. Of course, cell phone carriers don't like this technology because it would cut into a new revenue stream (screwww them).

Now ISP's all over the world are looking at how much more money Cell phone companies are making off the internet... and want a piece of the pie. They want to introduce UBB (Usage Based Billing) so that 8$ a month Netflix service will actually cost you much much more. This makes sense when your ISP also owns cable (or satellite) tv (and pay per view).

I can live with the temporary email issue everybody here is complaining about.

So really, how many apps (not Games) do you buy for your PC that are not professional or business?

Antarctic ice breakup makes ocean absorb more CO₂

The arctic is notoriously variable

"The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places seals are finding the water too hot. Reports all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, while at many points, well known glaciers have entirely disappeared."

--US Weather Bureau, 1922

The most respected science climatologist does not agree with you!

Richard S. Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist and Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T. He was the lead author of Chapter 7 of the I.P.C.C’s Third Assessment Report on Climate Change and he recently gave testimony before the House Sub-Committee on Science and Technology regarding the topic of, “A Discussion on Climate Change” …(corrects himself) … “A Rational Discussion on Climate Change”

"(...)Given that this has become a quasi-religious issue, it is hard to tell. However, my personal hope is that we will return to normative science, and try to understand how the climate actually behaves. Our present approach of dealing with climate as completely specified by a single number, globally averaged surface temperature anomaly, that is forced by another single number, atmospheric CO2levels, for example, clearly limits real understanding; so does the replacement of theory by model simulation. In point of fact, there has been progress along these lines and none of it demonstrates a prominent role for CO2. It has been possible to account for the cycle of ice ages simply with orbital variations (as was thought to be the case before global warming mania); tests of sensitivity independent of the assumption that warming is due to CO2(a circular assumption) show sensitivities lower than models show; the resolution of the early faint sun paradox which could not be resolved by greenhouse gases, is readily resolved by clouds acting as negative feedbacks.(...)"

Watch: Richard Lindzen, Ph.D. Lecture Deconstructs Global Warming Hysteria (High Quality Version)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sHg3ZztDAw

The Climate Science Isn't Settled - Confident predictions of catastrophe are unwarranted.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html

Clean air.

I'm not going to argue if the climate models are accurate. But I don't think a Carbon Tax will solve the problem, it's just another revenue stream for governments at our expense.

On the other hand, I do care about clean air. I have asthma, like so many other city dwellers, and my lungs are sensitive to air pollution. So any measure to reduce CO2 emissions by reducing the amounts of fossil fuels we burn has a direct effect on the quality of the air we breathe... which is a good thing for all of us. I hope electric cars like the Chevy Volt or Nissan Leaf become popular, I'd like to buy one, especially since gas prices keep going up. I dream of the day where I can be stuck in a traffic jam without having to smell toxic fumes and breathe deadly carbon monoxide.

US Navy to field full-on robot war-jets as soon as 2018

PS3 in the SKY!

I'm joining the Air Force and all I need is my Game Controller. I don't have to kill my Russian opponent, just his inferior UAV. Can't Wait!!!

Airship 'Sky Tugs' ordered from Lockheed for Canadian oilfields

Heavy lift capabilities this "Blimp" will provide could be used all over the world.

Many heavy industries are limited in the size of products they can build because of the problems moving them by roads (narrow roads, underpasses and bridges and power lines). This technology would solve those problems and allow engineers working for factories in your area to build new monstrous machines that no one dreamed possible before... and deliver them to the customer in one piece... like factory built homes.

Libya fighting shows just how idiotic the Defence Review was

Oil

The West was happy with Qaddafi before the "Arab Spring". The oil flowed and investments abounded so there was no need to "steal" Libya's oil.

The Libyan Rebels clearly said that they would remember which "Friendly Countries" helped them during their struggle against Qaddafi.

I think the West took a gamble that Qaddafi would fall sooner or later and it was better to back the rebellion if they wanted to keep their investments in Libya. On the other hand, Germany, China, Brazil, India and Russia bet on Qaddafi and will not be rewarded by the new Libya.

Tanks are still useful in some situations

A decade ago the Canadian Armed Forces decided to phase out all Tanks and replace them by Light Armored Vehicles (LAVs like the Stryker). But after 10 years in Afghanistan, they decided to scrap that plan. Turns out LAVs can't handle the Afghan terrain very well and are getting stuck in the sand and ditches quite often (and need to be pulled out by tanks).

Canada and Denmark have deployed tanks to Afghanista­n over 3 years ago and their success in helping American operations recently is what has convinced US forces to bring their own.

Only tanks can handle the Panjwai district’s mud-brick compounds and its irrigation ditches. They can crumble low-lying brick walls by using dozer blades. This clears a path for other forces, and allows the tanks to continue moving forward and providing fire support. they also provide advanced optics that can be used to observe Taliban fighters from more than four miles away as they plant improvised explosive devices. Tanks also support troops under fire almost instantly, calling in air support or artillery takes several minutes which is a long time when you're getting shot at.

And a lonely tank manning a road block is much more intimidating to insurgents than a LAV.