You don't understand science. Scientific predictions can be wrong. Over time, the mass of accumulation of experimentation, facts, and results produces the body of knowledge of science. If there's a problem with our understanding of gravity, the Theory of Gravity is not thrown out the window; it is updated. After hundreds of years of studying gravity, with a massive amount of data points, experiments, etc., it's just not going to be wrong on most points - and even if it is, it doesn't make any of science's previous modelings of gravity to be unscientific.
The fact that it's hard to predict climate does not mean that the body of scientific evidence can be ruled out. We have evidence of dozens of years of Earth's average temperature not going up as much as some hypothesized. However, the data of the theories of AGW is only increasing and getting more accurate. There are now way more variables that are understood for the climate models. For example, and I promise this isn't an AGW crackpot theory, google the effect of airplane contrails after 9/11, when almost all airplane flight stopped, and it was found that airplanes probably provide a small "protective layer" in the atmosphere.
Science is not religion. I understand that you've probably come across people who treat it as such. But your post sounds very much like a religious and political argument, rather than a scientific debate.
The danger of excessive CO2 is not offset by plants. Yes, CO2 is used by plants, but having extreme amounts of it in the atmosphere causes a greenhouse effect. The effect that climate scientists are worried about is actually relatively minor by astronomical scales - a few degrees Celsius in hundreds of years - but will have devastating effects on the comfort, economy, and livability of humans in many areas of the earth.
How would you solve the situation? It sounds like any problem that takes a lot of people could never be solved, by your reasoning. It sounds like... wait for it... you require a government to step in.
> Historical temperature swings similarly show no correlation to CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
This isn't correct. We know of some historical temperature swings which don't have higher levels of CO2 but we also have some that do. The majority of climate scientists explain that a higher level of CO2 in the atmosphere cause a greenhouse effect which will raise the average temperature by a mere few degrees over hundreds of years. That sounds like nothing to us but means a lot for the overall ecosystem of Earth.
> But plants aren't harmed by CO2 - it's what they SUBSIST on.
What "AGW fuckers" which I presume you mean climate scientists are worried about is a global rise in temperatures, not plants receiving more CO2.
Racism = prejudice + power, not just prejudice towards other races. You can't have racism without power over someone; if you don't have that, you just have prejudice and stereotypes.
When they refer to "reversisms", it's reasonable to infer they are referring to the idea that "this is sexist towards men" or towards straight people, etc., doesn't meet their criteria for getting involved, because it's not at the level of real racism or real sexism, which involves real marginalism and not the internet version of cat fights. Not that it's not pissing people off or isn't offensive, but that the internet is the internet and there's only so much they want to deal with.
I don't think they're equal (left and right's responsibility and effective outcomes against the relative CO2 emissions), but I won't bother arguing that because there's plenty of the internets to do that elsewhere.
What I will say is that I don't think it's correct to compare China and the entire West's percentage of CO2 emissions. It is smarter to focus on reducing emissions in your own country and be a leader in doing so, regardless of that. The technology will slowly but steadily build up to make it more efficient. The costs will go down in the long term, even if they are expensive in the short term.
You've conflated too many groups, i.e. cherry picked data, in order to fit the evidence to your world view.
The non-teaparty population is composed of everyone... liberals, conservatives, and whatevers. Those websites are right-leaning and show that you are looking for evidence in places that fit your world view. It says that tea-partiers are more scientifically aware than conservatives as well.
Don't get me wrong - I'm glad that tea-partiers are slightly more scientifically aware, because I'm glad when anyone is more scientifically aware.
Saying that removing illegal immigrants will cause poor welfare Americans to start working in fields is like saying keeping the death penalty will stop people from killing each other. It's a conservative fantasy without any evidence (and actually evidence to the contrary).
As a gay person, I can tell you that debates of these statistics - "How many people are actually gay?" - is a popular discussion in gay circles. Many gay people think that the number is closer to 20% because, frankly, they've experienced things that lead them to believe that, such as having sexual encounters with self-identifying straight people, and confessions of people that they wouldn't tell anyone else.
But what is gay? Just one same-sex encounter out of ten thousand opposite-sex encounters? What if you like it sometimes, or at one point in your life, but not others?
In this, I defer to the Nazis as always. They were very very meticulous about their sociographic statistics, what with their racial theories and all. They found that around 8% of the German population was gay. That number seems about right to me.
It was just an example off the top of my head that has nothing to do with text boxes. Forget the fucking browser; in JavaScript, the string "009" when implicitly cast to a number does not turn into the integer 9. That's stupid.
He was mad that GitHub wasn't enforcing this policy with all projects, even though it's absofuckinglutely unnecessary. And if you look at the page, he was writing a post with manual 72-ish line breaks inside an HTML context (GitHub comments), making it look stupid.
It has nothing to do with the Linux kernel. If you read the post in context, he was mad that GitHub didn't enforce 72 character limits with all projects.
1. Overall, UI+Navigation takes longer. There's more manual lifting to write non-standard page elements. Writing margins and locations directly in code instead of by layout managers, etc. 2. Crashes are harder to track down. This is probably true for ANY environment that's C-based.
Swift will probably close the gap, especially for #2.
One thing that he was absolutely wrong about: his insistence that commit messages be wrapped to 72 characters. The summary is that he railed against the idea that display tools (like HTML) should automatically wrap text because humans know better how to wrap text.
Why the 72 character limit? So it appropriately works on 1960's display technology.
Oh, and the hilarious thing about this is that he word wrapped his own HTML text in the very Gtihub post, making it display wrong in the web browser, while everyone else's text looks correct at the right width as prescribed by the page's CSS rules.
He's right, though. From a language purist perspective, Javascript is an awful language. The fact that 009 entered into a textbox doesn't translate into the number 9 is a historical flaw that is purely a language failure. Just because it's popular doesn't make it good. And that's the argument that's going on here.
So, I work for a company who wants the product on all platforms... we dev on all platforms, and we even outsourced a windows app (ha!). But anyways, it's true. It's way faster to iterate in Android than it is in iOS. So our features come out on Android first.
I can hear everyone saying "get better iOS developers!" Well, maybe. But I don't think so. The devs are pretty much equally capable on both sides. Maybe Swift will change things, but the reality is is that Android development is faster than iOS development, and there's no internet chatter that will change the reality of what we're experiencing. Maybe Swift will change that, and if that's the case, cool. But right now, it's faster to iterate on Android hands down, and I believe (obviously an opinion here, however an educated opinion), the reason is Java is faster to develop in than Objective-C.
People have been doing this for thousands of years, to protect the interests of both involved. For example, dowries which must be repaid to the woman if there is a divorce, husband has to pay wife half of salary for half as long as they have been married, etc. I wouldn't say it's self-harming; I'd say it's generally to a certain penalty that both parties have an interest in not breaking the contract.
I actually mean that the negative consequences built into the contract. If someone creates a contract that says "we're married" and that's it, you don't even need a contract. If it says "then we split assets 50/50 if broken", then you have negative consequences of breaking it, and if you don't want to honor the agreement, then the State can help enforce it.
Slashdot Mirror
How will a thousand anti-malaria bed nets make AGW a much easier problem to deal with? (Serious question)
You don't understand science. Scientific predictions can be wrong. Over time, the mass of accumulation of experimentation, facts, and results produces the body of knowledge of science. If there's a problem with our understanding of gravity, the Theory of Gravity is not thrown out the window; it is updated. After hundreds of years of studying gravity, with a massive amount of data points, experiments, etc., it's just not going to be wrong on most points - and even if it is, it doesn't make any of science's previous modelings of gravity to be unscientific.
The fact that it's hard to predict climate does not mean that the body of scientific evidence can be ruled out. We have evidence of dozens of years of Earth's average temperature not going up as much as some hypothesized. However, the data of the theories of AGW is only increasing and getting more accurate. There are now way more variables that are understood for the climate models. For example, and I promise this isn't an AGW crackpot theory, google the effect of airplane contrails after 9/11, when almost all airplane flight stopped, and it was found that airplanes probably provide a small "protective layer" in the atmosphere.
Science is not religion. I understand that you've probably come across people who treat it as such. But your post sounds very much like a religious and political argument, rather than a scientific debate.
The danger of excessive CO2 is not offset by plants. Yes, CO2 is used by plants, but having extreme amounts of it in the atmosphere causes a greenhouse effect. The effect that climate scientists are worried about is actually relatively minor by astronomical scales - a few degrees Celsius in hundreds of years - but will have devastating effects on the comfort, economy, and livability of humans in many areas of the earth.
How would you solve the situation? It sounds like any problem that takes a lot of people could never be solved, by your reasoning. It sounds like... wait for it... you require a government to step in.
I agree. Unfortunately people won't change until the Greenland ice caps melt and Florida ceases to exist. This won't happen in our lifetime (I think).
> Historical temperature swings similarly show no correlation to CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
This isn't correct. We know of some historical temperature swings which don't have higher levels of CO2 but we also have some that do. The majority of climate scientists explain that a higher level of CO2 in the atmosphere cause a greenhouse effect which will raise the average temperature by a mere few degrees over hundreds of years. That sounds like nothing to us but means a lot for the overall ecosystem of Earth.
> But plants aren't harmed by CO2 - it's what they SUBSIST on.
What "AGW fuckers" which I presume you mean climate scientists are worried about is a global rise in temperatures, not plants receiving more CO2.
Racism = prejudice + power, not just prejudice towards other races. You can't have racism without power over someone; if you don't have that, you just have prejudice and stereotypes.
When they refer to "reversisms", it's reasonable to infer they are referring to the idea that "this is sexist towards men" or towards straight people, etc., doesn't meet their criteria for getting involved, because it's not at the level of real racism or real sexism, which involves real marginalism and not the internet version of cat fights. Not that it's not pissing people off or isn't offensive, but that the internet is the internet and there's only so much they want to deal with.
I don't think they're equal (left and right's responsibility and effective outcomes against the relative CO2 emissions), but I won't bother arguing that because there's plenty of the internets to do that elsewhere.
What I will say is that I don't think it's correct to compare China and the entire West's percentage of CO2 emissions. It is smarter to focus on reducing emissions in your own country and be a leader in doing so, regardless of that. The technology will slowly but steadily build up to make it more efficient. The costs will go down in the long term, even if they are expensive in the short term.
You've conflated too many groups, i.e. cherry picked data, in order to fit the evidence to your world view.
The non-teaparty population is composed of everyone... liberals, conservatives, and whatevers. Those websites are right-leaning and show that you are looking for evidence in places that fit your world view. It says that tea-partiers are more scientifically aware than conservatives as well.
Don't get me wrong - I'm glad that tea-partiers are slightly more scientifically aware, because I'm glad when anyone is more scientifically aware.
Why is that semicolon in your signature?
Saying that removing illegal immigrants will cause poor welfare Americans to start working in fields is like saying keeping the death penalty will stop people from killing each other. It's a conservative fantasy without any evidence (and actually evidence to the contrary).
As a gay person, I can tell you that debates of these statistics - "How many people are actually gay?" - is a popular discussion in gay circles. Many gay people think that the number is closer to 20% because, frankly, they've experienced things that lead them to believe that, such as having sexual encounters with self-identifying straight people, and confessions of people that they wouldn't tell anyone else.
But what is gay? Just one same-sex encounter out of ten thousand opposite-sex encounters? What if you like it sometimes, or at one point in your life, but not others?
In this, I defer to the Nazis as always. They were very very meticulous about their sociographic statistics, what with their racial theories and all. They found that around 8% of the German population was gay. That number seems about right to me.
Wrong. Thomas being described as a mute shadow of Scalia is not racist.
It was just an example off the top of my head that has nothing to do with text boxes. Forget the fucking browser; in JavaScript, the string "009" when implicitly cast to a number does not turn into the integer 9. That's stupid.
The conversion of the text "009" to a value of something other than 9 is a language feature and has nothing to do with text boxes.
He was mad that GitHub wasn't enforcing this policy with all projects, even though it's absofuckinglutely unnecessary. And if you look at the page, he was writing a post with manual 72-ish line breaks inside an HTML context (GitHub comments), making it look stupid.
It has nothing to do with the Linux kernel. If you read the post in context, he was mad that GitHub didn't enforce 72 character limits with all projects.
Oh I forgot the main point: garbage collected vs. non-garbage collected environments/languages tend to always have faster development times.
My observations:
1. Overall, UI+Navigation takes longer. There's more manual lifting to write non-standard page elements. Writing margins and locations directly in code instead of by layout managers, etc.
2. Crashes are harder to track down. This is probably true for ANY environment that's C-based.
Swift will probably close the gap, especially for #2.
Can you explain? Automatic type conversions are a feature of a language not a browser.
One thing that he was absolutely wrong about: his insistence that commit messages be wrapped to 72 characters. The summary is that he railed against the idea that display tools (like HTML) should automatically wrap text because humans know better how to wrap text.
Why the 72 character limit? So it appropriately works on 1960's display technology.
Oh, and the hilarious thing about this is that he word wrapped his own HTML text in the very Gtihub post, making it display wrong in the web browser, while everyone else's text looks correct at the right width as prescribed by the page's CSS rules.
https://github.com/torvalds/li...
He's right, though. From a language purist perspective, Javascript is an awful language. The fact that 009 entered into a textbox doesn't translate into the number 9 is a historical flaw that is purely a language failure. Just because it's popular doesn't make it good. And that's the argument that's going on here.
First of all, I'm a developer.
So, I work for a company who wants the product on all platforms... we dev on all platforms, and we even outsourced a windows app (ha!). But anyways, it's true. It's way faster to iterate in Android than it is in iOS. So our features come out on Android first.
I can hear everyone saying "get better iOS developers!" Well, maybe. But I don't think so. The devs are pretty much equally capable on both sides. Maybe Swift will change things, but the reality is is that Android development is faster than iOS development, and there's no internet chatter that will change the reality of what we're experiencing. Maybe Swift will change that, and if that's the case, cool. But right now, it's faster to iterate on Android hands down, and I believe (obviously an opinion here, however an educated opinion), the reason is Java is faster to develop in than Objective-C.
People have been doing this for thousands of years, to protect the interests of both involved. For example, dowries which must be repaid to the woman if there is a divorce, husband has to pay wife half of salary for half as long as they have been married, etc. I wouldn't say it's self-harming; I'd say it's generally to a certain penalty that both parties have an interest in not breaking the contract.
I actually mean that the negative consequences built into the contract. If someone creates a contract that says "we're married" and that's it, you don't even need a contract. If it says "then we split assets 50/50 if broken", then you have negative consequences of breaking it, and if you don't want to honor the agreement, then the State can help enforce it.