or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by muppetry

My post was primarily about the perception of science and scientific consensus, not the detail of the climate change debate. However, I mentioned it because, while it doesn't seem to meet the criteria for an ideological disagreement, the skeptic side appears (to me) to have tried to make it one to further their argument. I know that you feel strongly about this, and I'm not sure renewing the debate is going to achieve anything. So just a couple of brief comments: There are...
It appears that the consensus, even among the non-scientific public, is increasing, even though the overall body of evidence has not changed much recently. That study actually highlighted a broader problem though - that the views of even moderately scientifically literate, religious and/or conservative Americans tend to be dominated by their religious/ideological beliefs when the scientific consensus is not aligned with those beliefs. Classic cognitive dissonance getting...
Some interesting data on the context of the debate: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/big-gap-between-what-scientists-say-and-americans-think-about-climate-change/
Great news if it happens, but there seem to have been lots of false alarms on this one.
Yes - OK - but you claimed direct causation, and then reiterated it as a fact. And if, by "self-interested connection", you still mean that his employment influenced his opinion, then not even a smattering of Latin is going to win the argument. If that also reflects your broader view of how everyone else forms opinions - narrow-minded self-interest - then I would have to suggest that you are actually just projecting.
Actually it isn't. It is only your assertion (and a pretty stupid one) that his disagreement arises from his employment by the U.S. Government.
I can't tell whether you are just being argumentative or you really don't understand the overriding goals of a publicly traded company, but I'll make one last observation. Maximizing long-term performance does not preclude trying to make the best possible products, within certain constraints, but it obviously does not include reducing profits just because one can afford to. You are taking Cook and Ive way too literally in those statements. I think you know that, though.
Fair enough - but now you just appear to be saying that you and Gruber know better than Apple management how to make their business work. On the face of it, that would appear to be an extraordinarily arrogant assumption in a market where Apple has, to put it mildly, demonstrated substantial success. And, to be clear, I'm sure that their goal is not to stop at "making more money than any publicly traded company in the world", but rather to continue to make as much as they can.
New Posts  All Forums: