"Summary Tyndall was right. There is no known refutation of Tyndall that would cause us to doubt that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are a driver for climate change."
Actually, I just learned that this too is not true. Not only did Tyndall get absoptivity and opacity confused, he also based his work on the assumption of the "luminiferous aether", which we of course know today does not exist. It is simply not valid to take a work that is based on the concept of "aether" and say it is vindication of ANY modern scientific theory.
Nowhere does Tyndall mention measuring the component of radiation reflected by the gases he examines... This is in spite of Tyndall's having handled chlorine gas, which is coloured by its reflection of visible light. It is clear that Tyndall measured opacity and relative opacity, not absorptivity and absorption as he seems to claim. In fact, Tyndall uses the terms "opacity" and "absorbing power" interchangably throughout his work. This is indicative of a fundamental misunderstanding, which is nonetheless studiously avoided by nearly all authors who claim that Tyndall's work proved the "Greenhouse Effect". In fact, it was another fundamental misunderstanding that lead to the proposition of the "Greenhouse Effect".
(Quote Tyndall) "I have already adduced considerations which show that the molecules of rock-salt glide with facility through the ether; but the ease of motion which these molecules enjoy must facilitate their mutual collision. Their motion, instead of being expended on the ether which exists between them, and communicated by it to the external ether, is in great part transferred directly from particle to particle, or in other words, is freely conducted. When a molecule of alum, on the contrary, approaches a neighbour molecule, it produces a swell on the intervening ether of space, which swell is in part transmitted, not to the molecules, but to the general ether of space, and thus lost as regards conduction. This lateral waste prevents the motion from penetrating the alum to any great extent, and the substance is what we all a bad conductor."
No, he wasn't. The "greenhouse gas trapping radiation" explanation he imagined for the effects observed in the de Saussure experiments existed in his mind only and still does not exist. The heating in de Saussure's hotbox experiments was solely due to solar heating, and prevention of convective cooling. See the reconstruction here.
In other words, exactly like a real greenhouse, which works the way I just described, NOT via trapping of radiation.
Fourier's explanation was that the trapped gas also "trapped radiation" to cause the heating. Which was WRONG. Period.
Whether the modern conception of the "greenhouse effect" in the atmosphere works along the lines Fourier imagined is a different story. But as I stated before: the experiments that gave him the idea had NOTHING to do with "greenhouse gases" at all. They worked according to the well-known principles that govern actual greenhouses, which in turn has nothing at all to do with "trapping radiation".
"It sure is a shame the no one has done any science since Fourier. Imagine the things we could have learned if only there were someone who could take his work and continue to study the greenhouse effect."
It sure would be interesting. Let me know when that happens. Quote Wikipedia:
"Arrhenius estimated that halving of CO2 would decrease temperatures by 4â"5 ÂC (Celsius) and a doubling of CO2 would cause a temperature rise of 5â"6 ÂC.[10] In his 1906 publication, Arrhenius adjusted the value downwards to 1.6 ÂC (including water vapor feedback: 2.1 ÂC). Recent (2007) estimates from IPCC say this value (the Climate sensitivity) is likely to be between 2 and 4.5 ÂC."
So let's see... Arrhenius estimated climate sensitivity to be 2.1 degrees C. Modern "science" says it's somewhere between 2 and 4.5 degrees C.
Doesn't look like much progress to me over the last 100 years. We've maybe learned to place error bars around out calculations. That's about it.
"He (Fourier) proposed the theoretical foundation"
Fourier proposed an IDEA, based on flawed assumptions and resulting flawed calculations. I am not "blaming" Fourier... such was the state of science at the time. But modern science would not arrive at his conclusions, given the same raw data. He gets credit (if that is the right word) for conceiving of the idea, but his theoretical work and calculations are useless due to too many flawed assumptions.
Tyndall showed that gases can warm by absorbing radiation, and cool by emitting it. I have no criticism of Tyndall's work.
Arrhenius attempted to quantify it. He came up with some potentially useful calculations but they were based on indirect observation and yet more assumptions. (I.e., he assumed CO2 and water were what were retaining heat in the atmosphere). His "quantification" merely confirmed his preconceptions. His was a classic case of fitting the math to the observations, not the other way around. (That is not necessarily an argument that he was incorrect. It just means that his conclusions did not necessarily follow from his premises.)
Kurt Angstrom rebutted Arrhenius' work. Angstrom's rebuttal was basically shouted down; I know of no actual refutation of Angstrom's criticisms.
P.S. The general term "Luddites" refers to people who are opposed to technological progress. It does not refer to those who think someone else's science is flawed.
So for example: someone who wanted to shut down a power plant might be called a Luddite. Someone who wanted to keep it running would not be.
"Fourier's discovery that the Earth was warmer than it should be given its size and distance from the Sun was a major step forward in geoscience."
It wasn't a "discovery", it was a calculation, AND it was a calculation based on false assumptions, because he simply did not have the information about it that we have now.
To put it bluntly: even if he did arrive at the right solution via his calculations (which is very questionable), he was still wrong. For example: the sunward surface of the moon, even when it is fullest (i.e., the furthest parts of its wobbly orbits about the sun) is FAR hotter than the surface of the earth... and the ONLY significant energy source is the sun.
By Fourier's calculations, even without an atmosphere there was not enough solar radiation to do that.
That is to say: he was simply wrong.
Hell, his assumptions were FAR from valid: one of the questions that led him to conclude that the atmosphere "retained radiation" was: "Why does radiation from the sun NOT heat the surface of the Earth to the same temperature as the surface of the sun?"
Today this question would be considered absolutely ridiculous to even ask. The sun, nearly 93,000,000 miles away, could never heat the earth to its own temperature or anything even like it: the inverse square law precludes anything of the sort.
To repeat what I said earlier: I am not trying to take away from the fact that he came up with these ideas. But his actual conclusions, from his actual observations, were based on false assumptions and were incorrect.
"wrong. Maybe you should read the report? Best case 220 mm, worse case 500mm"
Depends on which report you mean. In the IPCC Assessment Reports (plural) the realistic-worst-case I have seen was about a meter. As I recall, in the latest report they toned that down some, but as I said, I was talking about the worst case that I remember they reported.
"Just so you know, event happening have been closer to worse case then best case, in general."
Depends on who you talk to. Of 117 AGW models studies, many of which were referenced when compiling the latest AR report, the MEAN difference between the models' projections and actual observations was over 100%. I would say that only 50%, on average, of the projected warming can hardly be called "closer to worst case".
"And do you really think it won't effect you much just becasue you don't live in a city below sea level("
That isn't what I said.
"All those people will move, to where you are at. Infrastructure rices will increase faster then tax base growth."
As I said: let them pay for the costs of relocating. It simply isn't my responsibility, in any legal, moral or ethical sense of the word.
"That is why we, society, should be spending money now."
To relocate people? You go ahead and spend all the money you want. I'll keep mine, thanks.
"Or we wait until it's critical and deal the the much., much more expensive situation."
Yep. If they wait until the last minute, it will cost them a lot more. I don't dispute that.
"You, one way or another, use port cities."
Yep. And one way or another, I pay for the part I use. But I don't have any reason to pay for the part I don't.
"A one foot rise over thirty years (roughly correponds to 1m/century) means that a seawall or levee that would have held back the flood get overtopped."
Sure. But it also means that you have 100 years to make your levee higher, or to move farther up the hill. We aren't talking about sudden changes here.
"And if that's the case, you can just install Chrome on your Apple device, it's in the itunes store, and install the plugin for it instead."
You're missing part of the point. Chrome is intimately intertwined with other Google services, and in fact it's pretty damned hard to keep it separate from those services.
Government is not the only entity that snoops. And Firefox is the only major browser that doesn't belong to big snoopy corporate interests. (Although Apple SAYS that it doesn't snoop. And lots of people believe them. Certainly it doesn't snoop anything like Google does.)
GP wrote (or at least implied) that Microsoft paid GoDaddy to switch to IIS. The question is WHY? These are parked domains that use up virtually zero bandwidth, except for the occasional mis-typed URL or Whois. Performance is definitely not an issue. So you use the cheapest servers you can get and damn the performance.
So I ask again: why would Microsoft pay them to do it? If THEY paid, then it wasn't for sales. It wasn't to prove their performance. In fact I don't see any motivation at all, except for possibly market share.
If you can think of any other plausible motivation for them to do that, I'd be happy to hear it.
"this proof lies in the observations and theories of Tyndall, Fourier, Arrhenius et al. "
The experiments Fourier wrote about (actually performed by de Saussure), were examples of the "real" greenhouse effect; that is, they involved what amounted to a real greenhouse (an enclosed space which did not allow heat to escape via convection). But Fourier's speculations were about a DIFFERENT effect, in which layers of air trapped radiation.
We now know that the "greenhouse effect" popularized by greenhouse gas warming theories does NOT work by the same principle as a real greenhouse, or the experiments that Fourier knew about. He imagined a warming via trapped radiation, but the actual warming in the experiments was the same effect as in a real greenhouse (which does not involve trapped radiation).
So Fourier's "atmospheric greenhouse effect" was purely speculative, and could not in fact have worked by the same mechanism as the experiments which gave him the idea. He actually had no "evidence" of an atmospheric greenhouse effect at all. He literally dreamed it up out of thin air.
That is not to say that he didn't come up with the idea of greenhouse gases. It's just that the idea, as applied to the experiments which GAVE him the idea, was wrong.
"Now 6 cm/yr may not sound like a lot of additional thickness, but since 1993 that's at least 1.2 meters additional thickness"
6cm a year sounds like a hell of a lot to me. If your backyard gained 6cm more of new ice every year, you would not think it was trivial. And if you had to haul it all away, a piece at a time, you'd damned well know that much weight isn't trivial.
"Wrong question. The question is how far sea level is going to rise over your lifetime due to a multitude of causes.
According to the IPCC, perhaps as much as a meter over the next hundred years.
Then when you know that, the question is how much you will have to pay (in taxes, prices, and risk) to deal with the consequences."
Well, if that seems fast to you, you can always packing now.
As for taxes, it better not cost me very damned much, because I wasn't one of those people who decided to build (or live in) a big city at sea level. Nobody twisted their arms and made them live there. Let them pay to relocate.
In the case of New Orleans, the corrupt politicians and Army officials (Corp of Engineers) who took everybody's money instead of keeping the dikes in shape should be the ones paying the cost, not the taxpayers.
On the other hand, personally I think continuing to build a big city on the coast, below sea level, for 100 years or more with inadequate dikes should really be the top candidate for The Darwin Award of the Century.
"For over a decade the Slashdot poster has brought ignorance, libel, and the most inestimable repetitive motion, face-palming injuries to have afflicted the general public."
"Don't blame people for their own shortsightedness and stupidity? I think I'll do just that."
Well, wait, though. If you are going to do that, at least blame them for the correct stupidity, rather than the wrong one.
It's difficult for many people to "do their own research" if the news is blathering untruths and misleadings all the time. People don't expect the news to lie... and it does, often enough that we should be concerned as a country.
So yes, people SHOULD do their own research. But 2 things are required before they will do that: (1) they must first be aware that what they were told (or misled to believe) is wrong, and (2) the correct information must be available.
I assert that condition (1) has all too often not been met.
"...to see just how in the pocket of huge corporations the GOP is, and yet people continue to vote for them, against their own interests."
Holy fuck. How can you see anything at all from on top that incredibly high horse?
I am not about to claim that Republicans aren't in corporate pockets. But your implication that Democrats aren't is ludicrous. Just look at who Obama appointed as head of the FCC! I mean really, holy crap, get a clue.
Having said that, fixing Net Neutrality is easy, and the Democrat bill doesn't do it: simply classify ISPs as Title II Common Carriers. End of not only that problem, but lots of others too.
I've used Firefox for years, and I have been very privacy-conscious. So I am curious what "default settings" you mean. Your comment is not very informative.
"I don't know if Microsoft paid them, but GoDaddy did move all of their parked sites to IIS by default instead of Apache, which caused a major percentage change for Microsoft."
And why not, especially if Microsoft is paying them to do it? Those parked sites only represent a miniscule fraction of bandwidth, but as you say, make a big percentage difference in perceived market share.
Smooth move, Microsoft. You bring "lying with statistics" to a whole new level.
Slashdot Mirror
"Summary Tyndall was right. There is no known refutation of Tyndall that would cause us to doubt that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are a driver for climate change."
Actually, I just learned that this too is not true. Not only did Tyndall get absoptivity and opacity confused, he also based his work on the assumption of the "luminiferous aether", which we of course know today does not exist. It is simply not valid to take a work that is based on the concept of "aether" and say it is vindication of ANY modern scientific theory.
Nowhere does Tyndall mention measuring the component of radiation reflected by the gases he examines... This is in spite of Tyndall's having handled chlorine gas, which is coloured by its reflection of visible light. It is clear that Tyndall measured opacity and relative opacity, not absorptivity and absorption as he seems to claim. In fact, Tyndall uses the terms "opacity" and "absorbing power" interchangably throughout his work. This is indicative of a fundamental misunderstanding, which is nonetheless studiously avoided by nearly all authors who claim that Tyndall's work proved the "Greenhouse Effect". In fact, it was another fundamental misunderstanding that lead to the proposition of the "Greenhouse Effect".
(Quote Tyndall) "I have already adduced considerations which show that the molecules of rock-salt glide with facility through the ether; but the ease of motion which these molecules enjoy must facilitate their mutual collision. Their motion, instead of being expended on the ether which exists between them, and communicated by it to the external ether, is in great part transferred directly from particle to particle, or in other words, is freely conducted. When a molecule of alum, on the contrary, approaches a neighbour molecule, it produces a swell on the intervening ether of space, which swell is in part transmitted, not to the molecules, but to the general ether of space, and thus lost as regards conduction. This lateral waste prevents the motion from penetrating the alum to any great extent, and the substance is what we all a bad conductor."
"Summary Fourier was right."
No, he wasn't. The "greenhouse gas trapping radiation" explanation he imagined for the effects observed in the de Saussure experiments existed in his mind only and still does not exist. The heating in de Saussure's hotbox experiments was solely due to solar heating, and prevention of convective cooling. See the reconstruction here.
In other words, exactly like a real greenhouse, which works the way I just described, NOT via trapping of radiation.
Fourier's explanation was that the trapped gas also "trapped radiation" to cause the heating. Which was WRONG. Period.
Whether the modern conception of the "greenhouse effect" in the atmosphere works along the lines Fourier imagined is a different story. But as I stated before: the experiments that gave him the idea had NOTHING to do with "greenhouse gases" at all. They worked according to the well-known principles that govern actual greenhouses, which in turn has nothing at all to do with "trapping radiation".
"It sure is a shame the no one has done any science since Fourier. Imagine the things we could have learned if only there were someone who could take his work and continue to study the greenhouse effect."
It sure would be interesting. Let me know when that happens. Quote Wikipedia:
"Arrhenius estimated that halving of CO2 would decrease temperatures by 4â"5 ÂC (Celsius) and a doubling of CO2 would cause a temperature rise of 5â"6 ÂC.[10] In his 1906 publication, Arrhenius adjusted the value downwards to 1.6 ÂC (including water vapor feedback: 2.1 ÂC). Recent (2007) estimates from IPCC say this value (the Climate sensitivity) is likely to be between 2 and 4.5 ÂC."
So let's see... Arrhenius estimated climate sensitivity to be 2.1 degrees C. Modern "science" says it's somewhere between 2 and 4.5 degrees C.
Doesn't look like much progress to me over the last 100 years. We've maybe learned to place error bars around out calculations. That's about it.
"He (Fourier) proposed the theoretical foundation"
Fourier proposed an IDEA, based on flawed assumptions and resulting flawed calculations. I am not "blaming" Fourier... such was the state of science at the time. But modern science would not arrive at his conclusions, given the same raw data. He gets credit (if that is the right word) for conceiving of the idea, but his theoretical work and calculations are useless due to too many flawed assumptions.
Tyndall showed that gases can warm by absorbing radiation, and cool by emitting it. I have no criticism of Tyndall's work.
Arrhenius attempted to quantify it. He came up with some potentially useful calculations but they were based on indirect observation and yet more assumptions. (I.e., he assumed CO2 and water were what were retaining heat in the atmosphere). His "quantification" merely confirmed his preconceptions. His was a classic case of fitting the math to the observations, not the other way around. (That is not necessarily an argument that he was incorrect. It just means that his conclusions did not necessarily follow from his premises.)
Kurt Angstrom rebutted Arrhenius' work. Angstrom's rebuttal was basically shouted down; I know of no actual refutation of Angstrom's criticisms.
What abut Newton's method was wrong, pray tell?
P.S. The general term "Luddites" refers to people who are opposed to technological progress. It does not refer to those who think someone else's science is flawed.
So for example: someone who wanted to shut down a power plant might be called a Luddite. Someone who wanted to keep it running would not be.
"Fourier's calculations about that, were correct."
No, they weren't. See my other post from a few minutes ago. Fourier's calculations about that were very, very WRONG.
He came up with the IDEA. Yes. But his conclusions were based on calculations that were themselves based on invalid assumptions.
So yes, even if you believe that his conclusions were correct (not everybody does), he still arrived at them via incorrect means.
"Fourier's discovery that the Earth was warmer than it should be given its size and distance from the Sun was a major step forward in geoscience."
It wasn't a "discovery", it was a calculation, AND it was a calculation based on false assumptions, because he simply did not have the information about it that we have now.
To put it bluntly: even if he did arrive at the right solution via his calculations (which is very questionable), he was still wrong. For example: the sunward surface of the moon, even when it is fullest (i.e., the furthest parts of its wobbly orbits about the sun) is FAR hotter than the surface of the earth... and the ONLY significant energy source is the sun.
By Fourier's calculations, even without an atmosphere there was not enough solar radiation to do that.
That is to say: he was simply wrong.
Hell, his assumptions were FAR from valid: one of the questions that led him to conclude that the atmosphere "retained radiation" was: "Why does radiation from the sun NOT heat the surface of the Earth to the same temperature as the surface of the sun?"
Today this question would be considered absolutely ridiculous to even ask. The sun, nearly 93,000,000 miles away, could never heat the earth to its own temperature or anything even like it: the inverse square law precludes anything of the sort.
To repeat what I said earlier: I am not trying to take away from the fact that he came up with these ideas. But his actual conclusions, from his actual observations, were based on false assumptions and were incorrect.
"wrong. Maybe you should read the report? Best case 220 mm, worse case 500mm"
Depends on which report you mean. In the IPCC Assessment Reports (plural) the realistic-worst-case I have seen was about a meter. As I recall, in the latest report they toned that down some, but as I said, I was talking about the worst case that I remember they reported.
"Just so you know, event happening have been closer to worse case then best case, in general."
Depends on who you talk to. Of 117 AGW models studies, many of which were referenced when compiling the latest AR report, the MEAN difference between the models' projections and actual observations was over 100%. I would say that only 50%, on average, of the projected warming can hardly be called "closer to worst case".
"And do you really think it won't effect you much just becasue you don't live in a city below sea level("
That isn't what I said.
"All those people will move, to where you are at. Infrastructure rices will increase faster then tax base growth."
As I said: let them pay for the costs of relocating. It simply isn't my responsibility, in any legal, moral or ethical sense of the word.
"That is why we, society, should be spending money now."
To relocate people? You go ahead and spend all the money you want. I'll keep mine, thanks.
"Or we wait until it's critical and deal the the much., much more expensive situation."
Yep. If they wait until the last minute, it will cost them a lot more. I don't dispute that.
"You, one way or another, use port cities."
Yep. And one way or another, I pay for the part I use. But I don't have any reason to pay for the part I don't.
Correction: 100 years for a meter, of course. You have less time for smaller rises, but then smaller rises are also relatively less of a problem.
Where I live, any construction in a 100-year flood zone has to meet special criteria, and even then might not be approved by the city or county.
"A one foot rise over thirty years (roughly correponds to 1m/century) means that a seawall or levee that would have held back the flood get overtopped."
Sure. But it also means that you have 100 years to make your levee higher, or to move farther up the hill. We aren't talking about sudden changes here.
"And if that's the case, you can just install Chrome on your Apple device, it's in the itunes store, and install the plugin for it instead."
You're missing part of the point. Chrome is intimately intertwined with other Google services, and in fact it's pretty damned hard to keep it separate from those services.
Government is not the only entity that snoops. And Firefox is the only major browser that doesn't belong to big snoopy corporate interests. (Although Apple SAYS that it doesn't snoop. And lots of people believe them. Certainly it doesn't snoop anything like Google does.)
"What a silly thing to appear on slashdot."
Why is it silly? It still means that most people will be more secure, most of the time.
Correction: not even whois, because that goes to the nameservers, not the host domains.
Then what's the point?
GP wrote (or at least implied) that Microsoft paid GoDaddy to switch to IIS. The question is WHY? These are parked domains that use up virtually zero bandwidth, except for the occasional mis-typed URL or Whois. Performance is definitely not an issue. So you use the cheapest servers you can get and damn the performance.
So I ask again: why would Microsoft pay them to do it? If THEY paid, then it wasn't for sales. It wasn't to prove their performance. In fact I don't see any motivation at all, except for possibly market share.
If you can think of any other plausible motivation for them to do that, I'd be happy to hear it.
"Search for "social" in "about:config" to view all relevant settings."
I see. I had looked for "facebook" before, but hadn't thought to look for "social".
"this proof lies in the observations and theories of Tyndall, Fourier, Arrhenius et al. "
The experiments Fourier wrote about (actually performed by de Saussure), were examples of the "real" greenhouse effect; that is, they involved what amounted to a real greenhouse (an enclosed space which did not allow heat to escape via convection). But Fourier's speculations were about a DIFFERENT effect, in which layers of air trapped radiation.
We now know that the "greenhouse effect" popularized by greenhouse gas warming theories does NOT work by the same principle as a real greenhouse, or the experiments that Fourier knew about. He imagined a warming via trapped radiation, but the actual warming in the experiments was the same effect as in a real greenhouse (which does not involve trapped radiation).
So Fourier's "atmospheric greenhouse effect" was purely speculative, and could not in fact have worked by the same mechanism as the experiments which gave him the idea. He actually had no "evidence" of an atmospheric greenhouse effect at all. He literally dreamed it up out of thin air.
That is not to say that he didn't come up with the idea of greenhouse gases. It's just that the idea, as applied to the experiments which GAVE him the idea, was wrong.
"Now 6 cm/yr may not sound like a lot of additional thickness, but since 1993 that's at least 1.2 meters additional thickness"
6cm a year sounds like a hell of a lot to me. If your backyard gained 6cm more of new ice every year, you would not think it was trivial. And if you had to haul it all away, a piece at a time, you'd damned well know that much weight isn't trivial.
"Wrong question. The question is how far sea level is going to rise over your lifetime due to a multitude of causes.
According to the IPCC, perhaps as much as a meter over the next hundred years.
Then when you know that, the question is how much you will have to pay (in taxes, prices, and risk) to deal with the consequences."
Well, if that seems fast to you, you can always packing now.
As for taxes, it better not cost me very damned much, because I wasn't one of those people who decided to build (or live in) a big city at sea level. Nobody twisted their arms and made them live there. Let them pay to relocate.
In the case of New Orleans, the corrupt politicians and Army officials (Corp of Engineers) who took everybody's money instead of keeping the dikes in shape should be the ones paying the cost, not the taxpayers.
On the other hand, personally I think continuing to build a big city on the coast, below sea level, for 100 years or more with inadequate dikes should really be the top candidate for The Darwin Award of the Century.
"For over a decade the Slashdot poster has brought ignorance, libel, and the most inestimable repetitive motion, face-palming injuries to have afflicted the general public."
Must ... resist ... temptation... to... snark...
Ah. There. I did it. Hooray for me.
"Don't blame people for their own shortsightedness and stupidity? I think I'll do just that."
Well, wait, though. If you are going to do that, at least blame them for the correct stupidity, rather than the wrong one.
It's difficult for many people to "do their own research" if the news is blathering untruths and misleadings all the time. People don't expect the news to lie... and it does, often enough that we should be concerned as a country.
So yes, people SHOULD do their own research. But 2 things are required before they will do that: (1) they must first be aware that what they were told (or misled to believe) is wrong, and (2) the correct information must be available.
I assert that condition (1) has all too often not been met.
"Guilty until proven innocent' is a direct contradiction to the legal principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty."
"Innocent until proven guilty" is an ETHICAL principle, on which our laws are based. Not the other way around, as you seem to think.
An" error in thinking". The tests themselves are not "unreliable". The way people think about the tests IS.
As you have just proved, quite beautifully. If you are still confused, look at Example 2 on that page, and try thinking about it.
"...to see just how in the pocket of huge corporations the GOP is, and yet people continue to vote for them, against their own interests."
Holy fuck. How can you see anything at all from on top that incredibly high horse?
I am not about to claim that Republicans aren't in corporate pockets. But your implication that Democrats aren't is ludicrous. Just look at who Obama appointed as head of the FCC! I mean really, holy crap, get a clue.
Having said that, fixing Net Neutrality is easy, and the Democrat bill doesn't do it: simply classify ISPs as Title II Common Carriers. End of not only that problem, but lots of others too.
I've used Firefox for years, and I have been very privacy-conscious. So I am curious what "default settings" you mean. Your comment is not very informative.
"I don't know if Microsoft paid them, but GoDaddy did move all of their parked sites to IIS by default instead of Apache, which caused a major percentage change for Microsoft."
And why not, especially if Microsoft is paying them to do it? Those parked sites only represent a miniscule fraction of bandwidth, but as you say, make a big percentage difference in perceived market share.
Smooth move, Microsoft. You bring "lying with statistics" to a whole new level.
Agree with Mister_Stoopid.
DRM is the reason I don't own a Kindle.