It may be your opinion that rape requires intent, but that is not the opinion of the law. I hope you don't make the mistake of applying your (far higher) standard of rape to sexual encounters, because you might find yourself serving a significant prison term.
Well I'll save you the LMGTFY link to Firefox's new features, and I'll just say that one new feature I like is the ability to pair Firefox on my Android tablet with Firefox on my home machine. That's pretty slick.
The problem solved by HTML5 is that web pages have never made good application interfaces, but now they can become increasingly good.
It's only feature complete for people who want to browse in 2009. I prefer to browse in 2014, and it's going to take some new code to get us there in time.
Years ago I had time on my hand and decided I'd submit bugs for Mozilla and help make test cases. On one of my early attempts, I submitted a bug for the current beta-release version of FireFox and was met with the response that if I didn't use the latest nightly build, then my bug report was not welcome.
Okay. I never submitted another bug. Instead I built some Konfabulator widgets. And the response I received, itself received a response, saying that my submission WAS welcome. But alas, I didn't stick around to figure out what that community really wanted. That community had to chase off either me, or the person who demanded the nightly build, and they didn't chase off that guy, so they chased off me.
Maybe FireFox is better off without my contribution; maybe not. I'd like to think not, but we'll never know.
I don't know of any climate models that give daily, or weekly, or even monthly temp estimates. The system is too chaotic for that. Really good models try to give annual averages, but it's a heck of a lot more reliable to talk about decades or centuries.
The point is that we know December is colder than July, because we know a lot of variables, which control the temperature, which result in colder December temperatures. Likewise, we know a lot of variables, such as carbon dioxide, which control the temperature, which result in warmer long-term average temperatures. So, even though I can't tell you what the temperature will be in December, I can surely tell you it will be colder than July; likewise, even though I can't tell you what the temperature will be next century, I can surely tell you it will be warmer than last century.
Yeah I'm mostly with you. I accept the science; it's clear. The question of how to respond is more difficult, because it's political not factual. Some people say that it is obvious that if we are causing GW by burning oil, then we obviously have to stop burning oil; I disagree with those people; it's not obvious at all.
Our models are good enough to predict the weather tomorrow and for the rest of the week. That means the models are very good, compared to the alternative.
AGW models, which have almost nothing in common with weather models, are also very good. We'll continue to verify them, and refine them, over the coming decades.
Mmm hmm. Well, 3-5 years is a very high bar to achieve. It's much easier to say what the average temp will be over several decades, several decades from now. It's a lot of chaos with a small signal in it.
Anyway, you did a pretty rough job of strawmanning my argument, which was summed up thus: AGW isn't quite one of those things, but it is above the threshold of reasonable denial.
If you don't think scientists who get money by promoting AGW don't promote AGW than maybe there is no hope for you.
For this accusation to carry any weight, it would have to be true that anti-AGW scientists couldn't get MORE money to promote anti-AGW. Of course, there are such scientists, but only a tiny number of them, even though there is vastly more money to be made shilling for oil companies as shilling for -- who? uh, Greenpeace or something. So why don't the bulk of climate scientists chase the greater amount of money? My guess is because they honestly believe, after years of study and research, that AGW is the winning, true theory.
Yeah, man you are totally right. It's totally unfair to say he was exonerated when "no direct evidence has been presented that indicates the Subject fabricated the raw data he used for his research or falsified his results". Yeah, that doesn't at all mean that he was exonerated -- do the authors of the paper even know that the word "exonerated" means "Absolve (someone) from blame for a fault or wrongdoing"? Sheesh what numbskulls.
Weather measurements are repeatable. I work at a weather company with a proprietary physics model that predicts the weather. That model wouldn't work if measurements weren't repeatable in the general sense.
It turns out that millions of meteorologists over many decades have done a hell of a lot of science to determine how the weather works. If you or anyone else can come up with this "unaccounted-for variable" which controls things that no other meteorologist has ever thought of, then you can literally not figuratively be the richest person on the planet, because you and you alone will be able to beat lucrative weather-futures markets. And the meteorologists will be very impressed with you and welcome you into their fold! Until you do that, excuse me while I pay more attention to the scientists who think they have a firm grasp on this subject.
Science is never theoretically settled, but I'm bored by people pretending that suddenly tomorrow gravity could become a repulsive force, or electrons could suddenly double their mass.
No, dude, some science is settled. In fact, a lot of it is. AGW isn't quite one of those things, but it is above the threshold of reasonable denial, until a mountain of evidence appears to overturn it. Until then, there is only unreasonable denial.
I work at a weather company. We are very good at predicting the weather a day out. More than ten days and it slips into random territory.
Luckily for the climate scientists, that has absolutely nothing to do with their ability to predict the climate. You know how December is colder than July? That's climate. Trying to say we can't predict the climate is like saying that next December could be warmer than the following July. If you believe that, or if you pretend to believe that in order to make stupid points in internet forums, then you are a blockhead.
It's easy to explain anything in the Bible if you are willing to profess a belief in magic (also called "supernatural powers" or "miracles" or "God" or some other things).
Me? I'm not willing to profess a belief in magic, because that would be childishly silly.
Yeah. Well just to be clear, "independent apes" don't evolve. Single organisms don't evolve. Populations of organisms evolve over generations. That's sort of the point. It appears that humanity went through some remarkably narrow bottlenecks of population, which is why so many of us share some certain genetic markers.
I disagree that that is the point of faith. I don't think that is the point at all. Faith is an end unto itself: by faith you are saved. Faith is a self-perpetuating notion spread from human to human -- the "Holy Ghost", if you will. The point of having faith is to have faith.
Slashdot Mirror
It may be your opinion that rape requires intent, but that is not the opinion of the law. I hope you don't make the mistake of applying your (far higher) standard of rape to sexual encounters, because you might find yourself serving a significant prison term.
"than" /I have equaled your correction.
Well I'll save you the LMGTFY link to Firefox's new features, and I'll just say that one new feature I like is the ability to pair Firefox on my Android tablet with Firefox on my home machine. That's pretty slick.
The problem solved by HTML5 is that web pages have never made good application interfaces, but now they can become increasingly good.
Sure, but what about all the features which you would like, but can't think of?
That sounds like the software equivalent of religious fundamentalism.
It's only feature complete for people who want to browse in 2009. I prefer to browse in 2014, and it's going to take some new code to get us there in time.
IE has never been a leading browser. It's always been a following browser, no matter what its market share has been.
It's hard to be sure, but my guess is that the OP was referring to FireFox's stated plans to remove version numbers from the about-box info.
Years ago I had time on my hand and decided I'd submit bugs for Mozilla and help make test cases. On one of my early attempts, I submitted a bug for the current beta-release version of FireFox and was met with the response that if I didn't use the latest nightly build, then my bug report was not welcome.
Okay. I never submitted another bug. Instead I built some Konfabulator widgets. And the response I received, itself received a response, saying that my submission WAS welcome. But alas, I didn't stick around to figure out what that community really wanted. That community had to chase off either me, or the person who demanded the nightly build, and they didn't chase off that guy, so they chased off me.
Maybe FireFox is better off without my contribution; maybe not. I'd like to think not, but we'll never know.
I don't know of any climate models that give daily, or weekly, or even monthly temp estimates. The system is too chaotic for that. Really good models try to give annual averages, but it's a heck of a lot more reliable to talk about decades or centuries.
The point is that we know December is colder than July, because we know a lot of variables, which control the temperature, which result in colder December temperatures. Likewise, we know a lot of variables, such as carbon dioxide, which control the temperature, which result in warmer long-term average temperatures. So, even though I can't tell you what the temperature will be in December, I can surely tell you it will be colder than July; likewise, even though I can't tell you what the temperature will be next century, I can surely tell you it will be warmer than last century.
Yeah I'm mostly with you. I accept the science; it's clear. The question of how to respond is more difficult, because it's political not factual. Some people say that it is obvious that if we are causing GW by burning oil, then we obviously have to stop burning oil; I disagree with those people; it's not obvious at all.
Our models are good enough to predict the weather tomorrow and for the rest of the week. That means the models are very good, compared to the alternative.
AGW models, which have almost nothing in common with weather models, are also very good. We'll continue to verify them, and refine them, over the coming decades.
Mmm hmm. Well, 3-5 years is a very high bar to achieve. It's much easier to say what the average temp will be over several decades, several decades from now. It's a lot of chaos with a small signal in it.
Anyway, you did a pretty rough job of strawmanning my argument, which was summed up thus: AGW isn't quite one of those things, but it is above the threshold of reasonable denial.
If you don't think scientists who get money by promoting AGW don't promote AGW than maybe there is no hope for you.
For this accusation to carry any weight, it would have to be true that anti-AGW scientists couldn't get MORE money to promote anti-AGW. Of course, there are such scientists, but only a tiny number of them, even though there is vastly more money to be made shilling for oil companies as shilling for -- who? uh, Greenpeace or something. So why don't the bulk of climate scientists chase the greater amount of money? My guess is because they honestly believe, after years of study and research, that AGW is the winning, true theory.
Yeah, man you are totally right. It's totally unfair to say he was exonerated when "no direct evidence has been presented that indicates the Subject fabricated the raw data he used for his research or falsified his results". Yeah, that doesn't at all mean that he was exonerated -- do the authors of the paper even know that the word "exonerated" means "Absolve (someone) from blame for a fault or wrongdoing"? Sheesh what numbskulls.
Sure. Anyone who will provide the answer he already expects.
Weather measurements are repeatable. I work at a weather company with a proprietary physics model that predicts the weather. That model wouldn't work if measurements weren't repeatable in the general sense.
It turns out that millions of meteorologists over many decades have done a hell of a lot of science to determine how the weather works. If you or anyone else can come up with this "unaccounted-for variable" which controls things that no other meteorologist has ever thought of, then you can literally not figuratively be the richest person on the planet, because you and you alone will be able to beat lucrative weather-futures markets. And the meteorologists will be very impressed with you and welcome you into their fold! Until you do that, excuse me while I pay more attention to the scientists who think they have a firm grasp on this subject.
Don't we have enough proof of how ridicule this "scientist" is already?
Nope. You'll have to keep trying.
Science is never theoretically settled, but I'm bored by people pretending that suddenly tomorrow gravity could become a repulsive force, or electrons could suddenly double their mass.
No, dude, some science is settled. In fact, a lot of it is. AGW isn't quite one of those things, but it is above the threshold of reasonable denial, until a mountain of evidence appears to overturn it. Until then, there is only unreasonable denial.
I work at a weather company. We are very good at predicting the weather a day out. More than ten days and it slips into random territory.
Luckily for the climate scientists, that has absolutely nothing to do with their ability to predict the climate. You know how December is colder than July? That's climate. Trying to say we can't predict the climate is like saying that next December could be warmer than the following July. If you believe that, or if you pretend to believe that in order to make stupid points in internet forums, then you are a blockhead.
It's easy to explain anything in the Bible if you are willing to profess a belief in magic (also called "supernatural powers" or "miracles" or "God" or some other things).
Me? I'm not willing to profess a belief in magic, because that would be childishly silly.
He's an apostate!
Yeah. Well just to be clear, "independent apes" don't evolve. Single organisms don't evolve. Populations of organisms evolve over generations. That's sort of the point. It appears that humanity went through some remarkably narrow bottlenecks of population, which is why so many of us share some certain genetic markers.
I disagree that that is the point of faith. I don't think that is the point at all. Faith is an end unto itself: by faith you are saved. Faith is a self-perpetuating notion spread from human to human -- the "Holy Ghost", if you will. The point of having faith is to have faith.
And that is why it is all nonsense.
And by "lately" you mean "for the last two hundred years".