There has always been corruption in democracies. Should we abolish democracies? Oil companies are also corrupt. Should stop using oil?
Cap and trade works, just like taxes on CO2. Europe emit far less CO2 per capita than US/Canada/Australia. That some politicians fail to implement policies or are corrupt is not a valid reason for doing nothing.
And popular technology isn't either. Read the sources on wikipedia.
The problem with those 1350+ articles is that as an individual, I don't have the time to read them all to verify your claims. So I have to rely on synthesis reports such as those from the IPCC and various science academies. And they are well summarized on wikipedia.
You're really broadly generalizing though. Denying one controversial subject doesn't mean someone denies all science.
Of course. One can be a denier by denying results of the climate science while still acknowledging other, unrelated science such as the theory of evolution.
And by the way, AGW isn't controversial. At least not in the scientific community. It is in the mainstream American media, but that's it.
Denying part of science is enough to label someone as a denier. That's the problem with climate change skeptics. There are very few of them. Most are deniers.
The thing is, with what science currently says, we should reduce our CO2 emissions. Maybe some day we will discover that it was wrong, but probability is so low that we shouldn't live according to that possibility. And that doesn't change the fact that current science is that AGW is happening.
This wouldn't be an issue if the environmental movement weren't full of hippies that believes that everything that is natural is good and that only accepts solutions that involves less interaction with nature.
That an idea is supported by losers or hippies doesn't make it any less true (or any less false). If you think we shouldn't do anything against climate change because hippies want to act, you have a problem.
Why would it matter what the cause is? We are way beyond the point where just reducing carbon emission would solve the issue anyway.
If humans have an impact on the climate, then it also means we can do something to prevent AGW. If reducing CO2 emissions has no impact then I agree we shouldn't waste any money on it (except for other reasons such as air pollution in cities).
You are presenting a false dichotomy here. It's not either we solve it or we don't. Solving half of the problem is better than not solving it at all.
When climate alarmists stop pretending that the dispute is over the degree of human influence on climate, and how much different countries should spend to mitigate anthropogenic climate change (or other kinds!), they might start to get traction with skeptics.
This has been tried all over again (see the Stern Review, for instance). There are two problems with this:
1. There is (unfortunately) still a debate (not within the scientific community, but within the general population in some countries) over the degree of human influence on climate change. Some people still believe human activity has little or no impact. Why would they want to fix something they don't even think is broken in the first place? They are deniers. Their answer is and will always be $0.
2. How much different countries should spend is not a scientific debate. It's a political one. Life on earth isn't threatened by climate change. It's our current way of live that is. Doing nothing will end up costing more than if we act. But how much should we value the saving of pacific island nations is not a scientific debate. There is no "truth" to find there. It's a political debate and like all political debate, it depends on values.
Yes they do. Mostly in countries such as Russia, Saudi Arabia or the US. Many people still think, despite the evidence, that human activities have no impact on climate change.
It's not scientist X, Y and Z that they do not trust. It's all scientists except X, Y and Z. And only because these 3 still deny climate change.
The thing is, in the same city there are households earning only 50k/year. And they have kids. They would be happy to have a 300k house but they can't afford it. To them, 100k is wealthy. I don't understand why people are ashamed to admit it.
Denmark is still subsidizing Greenland by a wide margin. 1/3 of the GDP comes from Denmark subsidies, and almost 2/3 of the island's government revenues.
How hard is it to convert hyperlinks to # when sending over legacy protocols such as SMS?
Different kind of links could have different colors or font. Not a real problem. The worse possible solution would be to add characters making text less readable.
Which is exactly how they work on Twitter and Facebook?
Except that the '#' is still there and serves no purpose.
Which is why a lot of people stick the hashtags at the end of what they post and not in the middle. The fact that some people "misuse" them (although you can debate that) doesn't mean that they aren't fundamentally different from hyperlinks or they don't serve a useful purpose. They're effectively the <meta name="keywords"> tag in a medium that doesn't accept full HTML.
Still not good enough. Even at the end of a message it still waste space (at least 1 character, if not the world word). Why can't twitter just convert # and @ to hyperlinks and be done with it? This way they could be in the middle of messages and still be readable.
So basically you're only complaining about the presentation of the hashtag?
Yes. It's a good enough reason for not using twitter. I don't want to see a '#' character on keywords just like I don't want to see '\n' at the end of every line.
I have the same complain about '@' on twitter.
I get the point, but I do not agree. It could still be a hyperlink. Clicking on the hyperlink would automatically list recent twits using the given tag. Just like on Slashdot.
Putting # signs in the middle of sentences just make it less readable and has no benefit. Underline, or special color is a much better idea.
Having to read a #text full of #hashtags is #painfull. That's why we invented a much better alternativeyears ago. Twitter is a regression on so many aspects, I can't wait for it to join My Space.
Self signed HTTPS is still better than HTTP.
I can approve the self signed certificate when I am on a network that I trust enough, such as my home ISP. When I go to a public hot spot, if a middle man fake that certificate, I will get an error message. And unless I also approve this new certificate, nobody will be able to see and alter my content.
Current browsers prefer HTTP over HTTPS. That's why you don't get any security warning when you connect to a HTTP site but you get a death warning when you visit a self-signed certificate HTTPS site.
Slashdot Mirror
there you go http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
and while bus widths on mobile parts are significantly smaller than the 64-bit channels that desktops use
Many chips such as Snapdragon 805 and Apple A8x use dual-channel 64-bit LPDDR3 with about 25GB/s total memory bandwidth.
Not disregarded. Synthetized by other scientists.
There has always been corruption in democracies. Should we abolish democracies? Oil companies are also corrupt. Should stop using oil?
Cap and trade works, just like taxes on CO2. Europe emit far less CO2 per capita than US/Canada/Australia. That some politicians fail to implement policies or are corrupt is not a valid reason for doing nothing.
There you go: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/...
And popular technology isn't either. Read the sources on wikipedia. The problem with those 1350+ articles is that as an individual, I don't have the time to read them all to verify your claims. So I have to rely on synthesis reports such as those from the IPCC and various science academies. And they are well summarized on wikipedia.
You're really broadly generalizing though. Denying one controversial subject doesn't mean someone denies all science.
Of course. One can be a denier by denying results of the climate science while still acknowledging other, unrelated science such as the theory of evolution. And by the way, AGW isn't controversial. At least not in the scientific community. It is in the mainstream American media, but that's it. Denying part of science is enough to label someone as a denier. That's the problem with climate change skeptics. There are very few of them. Most are deniers.
The thing is, with what science currently says, we should reduce our CO2 emissions. Maybe some day we will discover that it was wrong, but probability is so low that we shouldn't live according to that possibility. And that doesn't change the fact that current science is that AGW is happening.
Wake me up when the US reaches per capita emissions comparable to Europe.
This wouldn't be an issue if the environmental movement weren't full of hippies that believes that everything that is natural is good and that only accepts solutions that involves less interaction with nature.
That an idea is supported by losers or hippies doesn't make it any less true (or any less false). If you think we shouldn't do anything against climate change because hippies want to act, you have a problem.
Why would it matter what the cause is? We are way beyond the point where just reducing carbon emission would solve the issue anyway.
If humans have an impact on the climate, then it also means we can do something to prevent AGW. If reducing CO2 emissions has no impact then I agree we shouldn't waste any money on it (except for other reasons such as air pollution in cities). You are presenting a false dichotomy here. It's not either we solve it or we don't. Solving half of the problem is better than not solving it at all.
Of course it's not a poll. But you really think one day some scientists will discover that all these researches were wrong, that AGW didn't happen?
When climate alarmists stop pretending that the dispute is over the degree of human influence on climate, and how much different countries should spend to mitigate anthropogenic climate change (or other kinds!), they might start to get traction with skeptics.
This has been tried all over again (see the Stern Review, for instance). There are two problems with this:
1. There is (unfortunately) still a debate (not within the scientific community, but within the general population in some countries) over the degree of human influence on climate change. Some people still believe human activity has little or no impact. Why would they want to fix something they don't even think is broken in the first place? They are deniers. Their answer is and will always be $0.
2. How much different countries should spend is not a scientific debate. It's a political one. Life on earth isn't threatened by climate change. It's our current way of live that is. Doing nothing will end up costing more than if we act. But how much should we value the saving of pacific island nations is not a scientific debate. There is no "truth" to find there. It's a political debate and like all political debate, it depends on values.
The science is on the skeptical side of the CAGW argument.
No, it's not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
"the denier ignores [science] entirely"
Do such people actually exist?
Yes they do. Mostly in countries such as Russia, Saudi Arabia or the US. Many people still think, despite the evidence, that human activities have no impact on climate change. It's not scientist X, Y and Z that they do not trust. It's all scientists except X, Y and Z. And only because these 3 still deny climate change.
The thing is, in the same city there are households earning only 50k/year. And they have kids. They would be happy to have a 300k house but they can't afford it. To them, 100k is wealthy. I don't understand why people are ashamed to admit it.
Denmark is still subsidizing Greenland by a wide margin. 1/3 of the GDP comes from Denmark subsidies, and almost 2/3 of the island's government revenues.
How hard is it to convert hyperlinks to # when sending over legacy protocols such as SMS? Different kind of links could have different colors or font. Not a real problem. The worse possible solution would be to add characters making text less readable.
Which is exactly how they work on Twitter and Facebook?
Except that the '#' is still there and serves no purpose.
Which is why a lot of people stick the hashtags at the end of what they post and not in the middle. The fact that some people "misuse" them (although you can debate that) doesn't mean that they aren't fundamentally different from hyperlinks or they don't serve a useful purpose. They're effectively the <meta name="keywords"> tag in a medium that doesn't accept full HTML.
Still not good enough. Even at the end of a message it still waste space (at least 1 character, if not the world word). Why can't twitter just convert # and @ to hyperlinks and be done with it? This way they could be in the middle of messages and still be readable.
So basically you're only complaining about the presentation of the hashtag?
Yes. It's a good enough reason for not using twitter. I don't want to see a '#' character on keywords just like I don't want to see '\n' at the end of every line. I have the same complain about '@' on twitter.
I get the point, but I do not agree. It could still be a hyperlink. Clicking on the hyperlink would automatically list recent twits using the given tag. Just like on Slashdot. Putting # signs in the middle of sentences just make it less readable and has no benefit. Underline, or special color is a much better idea.
Having to read a #text full of #hashtags is #painfull. That's why we invented a much better alternative years ago. Twitter is a regression on so many aspects, I can't wait for it to join My Space.
Self signed HTTPS is still better than HTTP. I can approve the self signed certificate when I am on a network that I trust enough, such as my home ISP. When I go to a public hot spot, if a middle man fake that certificate, I will get an error message. And unless I also approve this new certificate, nobody will be able to see and alter my content.
You are not supposed to subtract two epoch values directly. The difftime() function returns a double, and works just fine with unsigned time_t.
Current browsers prefer HTTP over HTTPS. That's why you don't get any security warning when you connect to a HTTP site but you get a death warning when you visit a self-signed certificate HTTPS site.
time_t is signed so that dates before 1970 (down to 1901) are valid
Carriers shouldn't be pushing cell phone updates either. Especially not on Nexus devices.