Or alternatively, the People know that the global warming story is white middle-class hysteria and refuse to fund fantasies any more.
The people I've most recently encountered who were dead worried about climate change as an issue that was affecting them RIGHT NOW, were Eskimo in Northern Alaska. They're far from middle class. They see the ice fields they rely on for hunting forming later, and melting earlier, each year.
Even after a major eruption event? I know these don't happen very often, but I have a hard time believing that we output more CO2 than a volcano can potentially output.
Yes, even after a major eruption event. For example when Pinatubo blew in 1991, it released about as much CO2 as 10 days of human activity.
The published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998). The preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from about 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. The 35-gigaton projected anthropogenic CO2 emission for 2010 is about 80 to 270 times larger than the respective maximum and minimum annual global volcanic CO2 emission estimates. It is 135 times larger than the highest preferred global volcanic CO2 estimate of 0.26 gigaton per year (Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998).
Is that really surprising? Think about how many billions of cars, homes, offices and factories there are, spread across the whole world, all directly or indirectly burning fossil fuel and releasing CO2.
Everyone should know that the pols are whack. The most accurate measure of the outcome of this (or any) contest can be found at the bookmakers. William Hall is probably the biggest in the world. Most recent odds are Obama 5/1 to win, Mitt 2/7. http://sports.williamhill.com/bet/en-gb/betting/y/12/Politics.html
Looks like things are fairly dynamic at William Hill - right now, Obama 2/9, Romney 10/3.
But bear in mind, by the time a few bets have been taken, bookies' odds are *not* a straightforward reflection of their expected result. There are *many* other factors in play.
Apparently the thinking is like this: if you vote for someone who lost, then your vote "doesn't count."
In a first-past-the-post system, that's relevant.
I'm in a British marginal constituency, meaning it's usually a close race between the two main parties, and there are some also-rans.
So, let's say A is the party I really don't want to win. B is the "lesser of two evils". C is the party I really favour, but C is expected to be an also-ran.
If I vote for B, I stand a chance of preventing A from winning. If A wins, I get to say "well, at least I did what I could". Voting for C is effectively equivalent to not voting at all.
On a pure geopolitical level, one would expect "other countries" citizens to hope that the guy will win who'll weaken the US as an international competitor.
Your problem is that you think of international relations as a zero-sum game. It's not. Everyone can have a better life, if our nations support each other. Obama seems to me more in favour of international cooperation than Romney.
I think there are circumstances where an over-literal interpretation of a court order would constitute contempt of court.
Say I've written an obscene message on my neighbour's door in marker pen. The court orders me to pay a fine, and to clean off the graffiti. I clean the message off with wire wool, and in so doing, I deliberately scratch the obscene message into the door more permanently than the original pen ink.
There are two ways to see this:
- yours - I complied precisely with the court order. If the court wanted the door returned to its original condition, it should have worded the court order more precisely.
- a reasonable person's - I took the piss, I did not comply with the spirit of the court order, I am in contempt of court.
And to be fair, based on the verbosity of what Apple is required to post, I can understand their reluctance at putting it on their home page, since it could substantially alter how the page balances visually on a full screen browser
<sarcasm> Yes, that would be the main reason for Apple's relucatance</sarcasm>
All the music/streaming/radio apps are ad-laden broken crapware. Half the time they stop after 2 songs, and the other half of the time they're shoveling unwanted ads at me.
Google Play Music, if it's available in you're territory, is pretty good, and doesn't have ads. Its "make available offline" option is neat.
If it's not available in your territory, it'll still work if you sign up using a VPN to the USA (after signing up, you won't need the VPN)
Many auto-generated source files are that large or larger. For example, the C# include file created from one of our WSDL files is over 250k LOC. It's easy for someone with no experience to make a ridiculous claim like you just did, but in the real world we have to work with large source files.
Don't edit auto-generated source files. Treat them like binaries.
But, I do accept that there are some large files (generally not source code) that you sometimes need to manipulate. Eclipse's editor is probably not the best tool for that.
They'd have to be some damned strong magnets to hold a 55 inch TV. And do you want to move that TV out of the closet every time you want to watch a movie?
Sure, you could put a wireless power unit behind the wall where your TV is mounted, but why not just run a wire through the wall at that point? The hole isn't even an argument because you'll have already added some to mount it.
Hmm, how about a future display which you can put away when not in use, leaving a bare wall? Held up by magnets behind the painted surface; power and data via some contactless technology...
Now some people say you shouldn't have a single file with over 100k lines of code, but some of us like using old school procedural with just a sprinkling of OO.
Please don't put 100k lines of code in one file, even if you're writing non-OO C.
That is why I don't understand Kickstarter. If you want to give some random guy a few hundred quid to support him as he sits at home writing a book, I suppose that's up to you, but if there is no possible profit involved you shouldn't be allowed to treat it as a business transaction. It's just a donation to an individual who sounds ethically highly dubious.
I think you're missing what Kickstarter is. As a pledger, you definitely get something in return.
Look at today's "project of the day", 36 Dollars Magazine. Pledge $6 and you get a copy of the magazine. Pledge $36 and you get "Two copies of $36 Dollars Magazine, and a over-sized "study" format of the analysis of the production process including a reference guide, time and cost projections, and a summarized differential analysis of direct paper recycling via various means over traditional waste collection services.".
It's up to you whether you think that's a good deal or not.
If not enough people pledge, the product doesn't get made, and nobody pays anything.
The only difference between this and normal commerce, is that the producer gets a firm measure of demand, and some actual funds, before committing money to producing the goods.
You will only get more complex organisms, if that complexity is beneficial in that environment. It is quite easy to imagine environments where less complex organisms are fitter than complex ones.
Indeed, bacteria continue to do pretty well; they certainly beat mammals in both number and overall mass. But there are survival strategies that you need brains and limbs to achieve. And just to mix things up, things have co-evolved so that certain bacteria are co-dependent with certain mammals (etc).
Not to mention that if you have mutation, selection and replication, it's all-but-impossible for evolution *not* to happen. Once you have a single-celled organism with those properties, in an environment ready for colonisation, the evolution of complex organisms to exploit that environment is inevitable.
Getting that single-celled organism in the first place, that's more of a mystery, but there are several plausible non-religious theories.
Correct me if I'm wrong here but doesn't the bible say that god made the entire Universe and everything in it in 6 days? So if you believed in that wouldn't you be in direct conflict with science, the big bang theory and evolution?
I think -- in Europe anyway -- even most Christians; even priests and bishops; believe that the 6 days thing is a metaphor, or that "day" is a figure of speech for some long period of time.
Actually literally believing that man was created 518400 seconds after the heaven and earth, that's for extra special loonies.
Slashdot Mirror
It depends on will.
It was just 61 years from the Wright Brothers demonstrating heavier-than-air flight, to the Apollo 11 moon landing.
So space exploration has slowed down a bit in the last 40 years. Who knows what'll happen in the next 60?
Or alternatively, the People know that the global warming story is white middle-class hysteria and refuse to fund fantasies any more.
The people I've most recently encountered who were dead worried about climate change as an issue that was affecting them RIGHT NOW, were Eskimo in Northern Alaska. They're far from middle class. They see the ice fields they rely on for hunting forming later, and melting earlier, each year.
No, no, the CO2 from "volcanoes and stuff" is a factor, I'm sure.
But we should probably deal with the 99% of CO2 that comes from humans burning stuff, before moving on to the volcanoes releasing the other 1%.
Even after a major eruption event? I know these don't happen very often, but I have a hard time believing that we output more CO2 than a volcano can potentially output.
Yes, even after a major eruption event. For example when Pinatubo blew in 1991, it released about as much CO2 as 10 days of human activity.
Here:
The published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998). The preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from about 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. The 35-gigaton projected anthropogenic CO2 emission for 2010 is about 80 to 270 times larger than the respective maximum and minimum annual global volcanic CO2 emission estimates. It is 135 times larger than the highest preferred global volcanic CO2 estimate of 0.26 gigaton per year (Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998).
Is that really surprising? Think about how many billions of cars, homes, offices and factories there are, spread across the whole world, all directly or indirectly burning fossil fuel and releasing CO2.
I never saw a Gopher client with hypertext. Unless you count menus (I don't)
Hypertext certainly predates the WWW though.
DNS isn't just for web pages, and having a layer of indirection between the app and the IP address is useful.
Wouldn't it be better to run a parallel DNS (or DNS-like) system that's not run by The Man?
Everyone should know that the pols are whack. The most accurate measure of the outcome of this (or any) contest can be found at the bookmakers.
William Hall is probably the biggest in the world. Most recent odds are Obama 5/1 to win, Mitt 2/7.
http://sports.williamhill.com/bet/en-gb/betting/y/12/Politics.html
Looks like things are fairly dynamic at William Hill - right now, Obama 2/9, Romney 10/3.
But bear in mind, by the time a few bets have been taken, bookies' odds are *not* a straightforward reflection of their expected result. There are *many* other factors in play.
Apparently the thinking is like this: if you vote for someone who lost, then your vote "doesn't count."
In a first-past-the-post system, that's relevant.
I'm in a British marginal constituency, meaning it's usually a close race between the two main parties, and there are some also-rans.
So, let's say A is the party I really don't want to win. B is the "lesser of two evils". C is the party I really favour, but C is expected to be an also-ran.
If I vote for B, I stand a chance of preventing A from winning. If A wins, I get to say "well, at least I did what I could".
Voting for C is effectively equivalent to not voting at all.
Except that some companies genuinely are competitors. Nations, in general, are not in competition with each other.
I mean honestly, why would we?
On a pure geopolitical level, one would expect "other countries" citizens to hope that the guy will win who'll weaken the US as an international competitor.
Your problem is that you think of international relations as a zero-sum game. It's not. Everyone can have a better life, if our nations support each other. Obama seems to me more in favour of international cooperation than Romney.
Vote for the Mormon or you'll get the Muslim. Communism is NOT THE ANSWER.
As a Brit, I honestly have no idea whether this is parody or not.
I think there are circumstances where an over-literal interpretation of a court order would constitute contempt of court.
Say I've written an obscene message on my neighbour's door in marker pen. The court orders me to pay a fine, and to clean off the graffiti. I clean the message off with wire wool, and in so doing, I deliberately scratch the obscene message into the door more permanently than the original pen ink.
There are two ways to see this:
- yours - I complied precisely with the court order. If the court wanted the door returned to its original condition, it should have worded the court order more precisely.
- a reasonable person's - I took the piss, I did not comply with the spirit of the court order, I am in contempt of court.
And to be fair, based on the verbosity of what Apple is required to post, I can understand their reluctance at putting it on their home page, since it could substantially alter how the page balances visually on a full screen browser
<sarcasm> Yes, that would be the main reason for Apple's relucatance</sarcasm>
All the music/streaming/radio apps are ad-laden broken crapware. Half the time they stop after 2 songs, and the other half of the time they're shoveling unwanted ads at me.
Google Play Music, if it's available in you're territory, is pretty good, and doesn't have ads. Its "make available offline" option is neat.
If it's not available in your territory, it'll still work if you sign up using a VPN to the USA (after signing up, you won't need the VPN)
Opennness without sdport looks strange to me.
And where's the PCMCIA slot? The floppy disk drive?
I think this is akin to when the first laptops without CD drives appeared. Yes, it's a tradeoff, but it turns out you can do without.
Many auto-generated source files are that large or larger. For example, the C# include file created from one of our WSDL files is over 250k LOC. It's easy for someone with no experience to make a ridiculous claim like you just did, but in the real world we have to work with large source files.
Don't edit auto-generated source files. Treat them like binaries.
But, I do accept that there are some large files (generally not source code) that you sometimes need to manipulate. Eclipse's editor is probably not the best tool for that.
They'd have to be some damned strong magnets to hold a 55 inch TV. And do you want to move that TV out of the closet every time you want to watch a movie?
*Future* TV.
+1 Obligatory
Sure, you could put a wireless power unit behind the wall where your TV is mounted, but why not just run a wire through the wall at that point? The hole isn't even an argument because you'll have already added some to mount it.
Hmm, how about a future display which you can put away when not in use, leaving a bare wall? Held up by magnets behind the painted surface; power and data via some contactless technology...
Yeah. I don't find plugging in a charger a problem. I do like to use my device while it's charging.
Now some people say you shouldn't have a single file with over 100k lines of code, but some of us like using old school procedural with just a sprinkling of OO.
Please don't put 100k lines of code in one file, even if you're writing non-OO C.
That is why I don't understand Kickstarter. If you want to give some random guy a few hundred quid to support him as he sits at home writing a book, I suppose that's up to you, but if there is no possible profit involved you shouldn't be allowed to treat it as a business transaction. It's just a donation to an individual who sounds ethically highly dubious.
I think you're missing what Kickstarter is. As a pledger, you definitely get something in return.
Look at today's "project of the day", 36 Dollars Magazine. Pledge $6 and you get a copy of the magazine. Pledge $36 and you get "Two copies of $36 Dollars Magazine, and a over-sized "study" format of the analysis of the production process including a reference guide, time and cost projections, and a summarized differential analysis of direct paper recycling via various means over traditional waste collection services.".
It's up to you whether you think that's a good deal or not.
If not enough people pledge, the product doesn't get made, and nobody pays anything.
The only difference between this and normal commerce, is that the producer gets a firm measure of demand, and some actual funds, before committing money to producing the goods.
You will only get more complex organisms, if that complexity is beneficial in that environment. It is quite easy to imagine environments where less complex organisms are fitter than complex ones.
Indeed, bacteria continue to do pretty well; they certainly beat mammals in both number and overall mass. But there are survival strategies that you need brains and limbs to achieve. And just to mix things up, things have co-evolved so that certain bacteria are co-dependent with certain mammals (etc).
Not to mention that if you have mutation, selection and replication, it's all-but-impossible for evolution *not* to happen. Once you have a single-celled organism with those properties, in an environment ready for colonisation, the evolution of complex organisms to exploit that environment is inevitable.
Getting that single-celled organism in the first place, that's more of a mystery, but there are several plausible non-religious theories.
Correct me if I'm wrong here but doesn't the bible say that god made the entire Universe and everything in it in 6 days? So if you believed in that wouldn't you be in direct conflict with science, the big bang theory and evolution?
I think -- in Europe anyway -- even most Christians; even priests and bishops; believe that the 6 days thing is a metaphor, or that "day" is a figure of speech for some long period of time.
Actually literally believing that man was created 518400 seconds after the heaven and earth, that's for extra special loonies.