Likely a shit study like all the others that try to do this. The reality is that there no real difference. This has been proved over and over again; but these idiots have an agenda and will never quit.
I know you're probably a troll, but this is science: nothing is ever "proven", nothing is ever 100% certain, and they mentioned in the press release why this study is better than the previous ones that show no difference between organics and non-organics (basically, it used way more data and it's newer).
Social sign-in filters can be used to qualify customers.
That's basic market segmentation. Don't take it personally, but some companies don't want you as a customer. There are lots that don't want me either, if it's any consolation and you need consoling.
I'm very happy with my XPS 13 so far. I'm running 13.04 and I've encountered a few issues... however, Dell has been very responsive to my bug reports. Also, on 13.04, there is no need for the PPA. Dell's changes have been incorporated into the standard kernel.
Since then, it's been replaced twice, each subsequent system having similar issues in different areas of the screen. I'm working with someone at Dell corporate now to provide details for their engineering team...I have to imagine all three systems were from the same manufacturing run.
How many of those cancellations were due to the way Musk chose to comport himself in his response to the article (rather than as a direct result of the article itself)? I'm just wondering because, as someone who very much admired Musk in the past, I have to admit that, if I had a Tesla on order, I would be reconsidering my decision (and it would have very little to do with the article itself).
What exactly was bad about his behavior? Most engineers I know cheered that the scummy newsies who are always trying to twist things into a story to get attention got shown for what they are. He's seen as kind of a brilliant techie that managed to win over the system of fake articles starting another wave of fake articles ad infinitum through dint of technology and foresight. Although in reality it is more like experience since Top Gear pulled the same thing on him so he just knew to expect it.
While it is clear that Broder exaggerated some of his claims, Musk also made several baseless and misleading claims in his responses and then threw a bunch of plots at people to "prove" his points. Most people cheering him on just didn't read carefully enough to notice.
Except this wasn't a 'fake article' (whatever that means). Sure, there were some valid criticisms over the accuracy of the reporter's notes, but overall the conclusions seemed valid. They weren't even overly negative; just that the car doesn't quite compare to cars with petrol (or diesel) engines for long distances in cold weather.
I found Musk's reaction overly aggressive and coming off as petty. He pointed out inaccuracies, though none seemed to contradict the conclusions of the article. What's more, his accusation of malicious intent was very serious and completely unsupported. It's nice to see a CEO that's emotionally invested in his company's products, but he'd might be better off with a cooler head handling PR.
He's trying to sell cars to people you do not know, not engineers you know. Maybe Musk was reading HN and was encouraged by reading what his fanboys and Musk wannabees were writing. Huge mistake.
Thankfully, I don't see it too often except around release dates and the month or so after. It sort of erupts around then and settles afterwards. I try to avoid most places online that get into such disputes, but I would assume it's generally the same elsewhere?
I'm sorry, but there was nothing "well-reasoned and well-crafted" about that article. He does come off as an Apple elitist, that's true. But how can he explain the chasm between Apple 'fanboys' and 'haters' when he clearly does not understand and perhaps has never used the other platforms? This to me is Apple elitism at it's worst. It may be a bit more polished but, ultimately, it's no different than the thousands of other Apple fanboy posts that fill the internet.
"But I never see Microsoft fans attacking Android fans, or vice versa. And the rise of anti-Apple anger has risen dramatically as Apple has been so successful in recent years."
Seriously? Is he completely blind. The amount anger aimed at Google/Android from the Microsoft camp over the past year has been deafening. For me it's the other way around. I no longer see Microsoft fans attacking Apple (like they used to). Now, they almost always attack Android/Google.
One more thing. If Apple didn't start the fanboy culture, they certainly took it up a notch. Apple fanboys/girls have been filling the internet with crap for years. Now that Android has become so popular, a lot of people that used to feel marginalized have decided to jump on the bandwagon and they are taking every opportunity to vent.
Overall I find this all quite disturbing but not for the same reasons as the original author who quite honestly, comes across as a bit of an elitist. He does make some good points when he explains that these are different platforms with different pros/cons and everyone will never agree to use the same platform. However, it is evident that he just doesn't know anything about anything other than Apple. The new Microsoft products (Windows Phone 8, Windows RT, Windows 8 App Store) are not open platforms. They are indeed just as closed as iOS (and much more so than OSX).
In fact I wish that all of the fanboys/girls online would spend their time discussing the real differences between these companies and what the net effect is on users. Maybe then we could get some things fixed. For example I am an Android user and, though I REALLY LIKE Apple products, I will not purchase and use a device that I cannot gain root access to. The way I see it, if it's Apple's device to control, than I am merely renting it. On the other hand, one thing that Apple has impressed me with is how they have taken away control from the phone companies. This is where I wish Google would fight harder. I want to see a real Nexus device on every carrier. Anyway, I feel these are things that merit real discussion, consensus building, online petitions, etc....
...fanboy bickering is pointless and deconstructive. In the end we, as users, need to forget about being fanboys and learn to be activists.
Yes, this is the exact same feeling I got from reading the article.
He can't scold people for making Anti-Apple comments while he is making an extremely pro-Apple standpoint. It just does not come off as genuine. Instead of more partisan arguments (to use his analogy) we need actual discussions about each platforms respective shortcomings.
But many people are not qualified to have an objective discussion about these platforms because in many cases naysayers have only used the platform they prefer.
He is an primarily an Apple user after all and bound to read more Apple oriented news.
I don't think he would read much news about the new blackberry or even get a look at the comments.
It seems likely that you are an imbecile. Thanks for letting everyone know that you agree with everything the review says about Chomsky despite the fact that you haven't actually read Chomsky.
One can still have a conversation about a subject without having much depth in the subject. If you haven't read Taming of the Shrew, you can still understand the story if I give you a quick version, and we can talk about that meta-story, because there are things in the text (via my description) that we both understand. However, it's difficult to have a conversation with much specificity or depth having not both read the text.
You'll note that javert's posts here lack both specificity and depth. It's probably best to just leave it at that note.
Thanks for letting everyone know that you agree with everything the review says about Chomsky despite the fact that you haven't actually read Chomsky.
You're welcome. I think that's the intellectually responsible and honest thing to do. And it gives people a chance to point out what I am misunderstanding and educate me, if they really think I've gotten it wrong.
It seems likely that you are an imbecile.
I gave an explanation for why I haven't read his actual literature in another comment. I mean, I don't read the Quaran in order to learn about science, either. Does that mean I can't criticize those who do? Anyway, I'm pretty sure I'm not an imbecile.
"And it gives people a chance to point out what I am misunderstanding and educate me, if they really think I've gotten it wrong."
Just a friendly note that this notion will cause you much grief.
I used to think that it was the best way to quickly get to the point and figure out what is what in the matter. What happens instead is that people will call you an imbecile and go off on tangents about subjects they have recently read a story about instead of addressing the core issues, of which they know less about.
In reality most people do not know much about these complex issues and you will not really learn anything by trying to make them educate you. They are not able to.
You will need to investigate the issues yourself, including reading a lot of literature by those you think are wrong. Eventually you will be able to understand where those opposing viewpoints are coming from and if you are lucky you will learn something that can adjust your own views and you will no longer have the "us vs them" feeling and instead think of it as "those who are wrong on this point and those who are wrong on this other point".
Getting to that place is impossible by imploring others to educate you. They will at best try to convert you, which is entirely different.
I mean, it's not my primary motivation in making comments, for other people to "educate me" in a broad sense.
I meant something more like, "If I happen to have misunderstood some particular concrete thing, people can provide a citation that shows the opposite."
Which, indeed, didn't happen this time. Instead, as you said, there was just a bunch of very high-level disagreement without any "meeting of the minds" on some important lower-level details.
Anyway, my real motivation for posting on the Chomsky stuff was because I feel compelled to call out truly evil pseudo-intellectuals, as I see them, when I see them. Chomsky advocates "anarcho-syndicalism," which is just low-level rule by gangs. He wants to dismantle civilization, which he preaches hatred for. To me, he is in the same moral standard as the intellectuals that came before and enabled the likes of Stalin and Hitler.
Your description of this "mathematician" intrigues me. And, since I happen to speak Romanian, I would love to have a link to one of his lectures. Thanks! However, I agree with "mtraven" that you should not be leveling this kind of accusation until you have read Chomsky's work.
Thanks... The video was hilarious but the dude is truly insane. I assure you that, whether you agree or disagree with him, Chomsky has absolutely nothing in common with this guy. Wow! If any other Romanian is reading this, check out that video. After a couple minutes you won't know whether you should laugh or you should cry.
