I think the main point people are missing here is that whether the bug causing the crash is Vista or Apple's fault maybe, just maybe, Apple should have thought about bug testing before release? iPods and iTunes are marketed as Windows capable, so regardless of anything else it's Apple's responsibility to ensure a working, stable Windows version of their software.
Bugs in Vista isn't massive news, but Apple not bothering to bug test their software properly is - if they can't spot a flaw this obvious (iTunes + Vista = crash), how can anyone use their products expecting them to have found and removed any and all security vulnerabilities?
No, not really. There's no indication the numbers are from last month, they may be from last quarter - before the launch of the 3G. Or they may be from last year, because they specifically mention "Shipments in 2007"
Obviously people aren't going to believe that they are measuring CO2 from an active volcano, because it's just too stupid to be true. But it is true, take a look: CO2 measured at Mauna Loa. Yes, they measure carbon dioxide levels at the largest volcano on the planet. Do you see any problems with that?
You have evidence to support this theory? Or are you relying on what the comic books you read describe as 'conservative political operatives.'
(yes, yes, we know you can flame)
Flame? You know I can flame? You have been on the receiving end of one of my flames? Well, asshole, then probably you did deserve it.
But I wonder what this has to do with my post you answered to, that wasn't a flame. Are you claiming that the oil industry hasn't paid big money to scientific papers that claimed there was no such thing as Global Warming?
Wasn't there a story some time ago about increased volcanic activity at the North Pole that was warming up the water?
No, there was a story that volcanic activity at the North Pole was greater than expected, but that it didn't cause the arctic ice to melt, because it is too far below the sea (ice) surface. Nor is the amount of CO2 released anywhere near the amount of man-made CO2, nor is there indication that the activity started "recently" in any but a geological timescale.
CO2 is the problem, the climate was working fine with the water vapor.
This is a "straw that broke the camel's back" issue we have here. If we know that water vapor causes 70% of the greenhouse effect and carbon dioxide only about 10%, then doubling the concentration of carbon dioxide won't do much-- will it?
Are you actually asking, or claiming it won't?
Well, let's look at the numbers: the Greenhouse effect is estimated to raise the average surface temperature on Earth from about -18C to 14C - a difference of 32C - before any man-made CO2 was added. The "natural" amount of CO2 would thus (by it's own) result in an increase of 3.2C
So what would an increase from 280 ppm CO2 pre-industrial to 384 ppm today result in? Nothing? "Not much"? About 37% of 3.2C (without any positive feedbacks)?
Are you that naive? Let put it to you this way if you were a college professor and wanted a grant for the study of the breeding habits of say, pigeons... I guarantee you if you append the application with 'and the effect of global warming on them' you're far more likely to get a grant.
Actually, he could make a huge fortune if he added "and proof that there is no man-made Global Warming".
Hah! We are now well overdue for solar cycle 24 and haven't had a sunspot for a month. Our theory is simple. If there are no sunspots, the planet cools, otherwise, it gets warmer. Fancy that, the planet has actually cooled somewhat this year, despite the increases in CO2.
Then why doesn't simply temperature go up and down in nice (aprox.) 11 year cycles? Maybe your theory is too simple?
Well, it looked like you tried to imply that global warming was caused partially by the building of the Panama Canal, specially after you mentioned the troglodites and industry.
If I was mistaken, forgive me, but you never know what people really try to say when in slashdot. Oh well. I guess I got too paranoid of Global warming skeptics.
Actually, what he did try to imply was that Global Warming is caused by something akin to two continents colliding, just that nobody has mentioned yet.
Geesus, do you have trouble understanding words as simple as "could"? No wonder you have problem with understanding much more complex things like Global Warming.
I queried a heap of the Arctic oceanographers and climate and ice experts Iâ(TM)ve gotten to know since my North Pole journey in 2003. They uniformly reject the idea that heat from the bottom â" either from the general geothermal activity beneath the seabed or the occasional outbursts of lava or vents â" could have a significant impact on the veneer of floating, drifting ice on the surface.
And besides: there is no indication that there has been any change in activity in the last centuries.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the main point people are missing here is that whether the bug causing the crash is Vista or Apple's fault maybe, just maybe, Apple should have thought about bug testing before release? iPods and iTunes are marketed as Windows capable, so regardless of anything else it's Apple's responsibility to ensure a working, stable Windows version of their software.
Bugs in Vista isn't massive news, but Apple not bothering to bug test their software properly is - if they can't spot a flaw this obvious (iTunes + Vista = crash), how can anyone use their products expecting them to have found and removed any and all security vulnerabilities?
Maybe, just maybe they did? Maybe that's how they found that having old 3rd party drivers can blue-screen Vista when syncing the iPhone or iPod touch?
Two words - enterprise functionality. Or lack thereof.
Gee, StarTrek fans and their obsession with the LCARS interface.
No, not really. There's no indication the numbers are from last month, they may be from last quarter - before the launch of the 3G. Or they may be from last year, because they specifically mention "Shipments in 2007"
Obviously people aren't going to believe that they are measuring CO2 from an active volcano, because it's just too stupid to be true. But it is true, take a look: CO2 measured at Mauna Loa. Yes, they measure carbon dioxide levels at the largest volcano on the planet. Do you see any problems with that?
Thanks for proving that volcanos don't influence CO2 levels much: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.html
Note the spikes in 1975 and 1984, when there where huge eruptions at Mauna Loa - No? Because there are none. Figure that.
Now I'm stuck in this alternative reality where George W. Bush is President?
Yes, it is September 10th again. You are caught in a time loop. [spoiler snipped]
First he has to save the girl to understand what's behind it all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12:01_(1993_film)
"Blah-blah, CO2 is good for plant growth, blah-blah, things will be better than ever before..." The problem is that plants need more than CO2 to grow, like minerals, nitrogen and water. IOW, increased CO2 will just sap up those resources even faster. Not to mention that "Nutritional quality declines because while the plants produce more seeds under higher CO2 levels, the seeds contain less nitrogen."
I thought dolphins came with explosive charges?
You have evidence to support this theory? Or are you relying on what the comic books you read describe as 'conservative political operatives.'
(yes, yes, we know you can flame)
Flame? You know I can flame? You have been on the receiving end of one of my flames? Well, asshole, then probably you did deserve it.
But I wonder what this has to do with my post you answered to, that wasn't a flame. Are you claiming that the oil industry hasn't paid big money to scientific papers that claimed there was no such thing as Global Warming?
Wasn't there a story some time ago about increased volcanic activity at the North Pole that was warming up the water?
No, there was a story that volcanic activity at the North Pole was greater than expected, but that it didn't cause the arctic ice to melt, because it is too far below the sea (ice) surface. Nor is the amount of CO2 released anywhere near the amount of man-made CO2, nor is there indication that the activity started "recently" in any but a geological timescale.
This is a "straw that broke the camel's back" issue we have here. If we know that water vapor causes 70% of the greenhouse effect and carbon dioxide only about 10%, then doubling the concentration of carbon dioxide won't do much-- will it?
Are you actually asking, or claiming it won't?
Well, let's look at the numbers: the Greenhouse effect is estimated to raise the average surface temperature on Earth from about -18C to 14C - a difference of 32C - before any man-made CO2 was added. The "natural" amount of CO2 would thus (by it's own) result in an increase of 3.2C
So what would an increase from 280 ppm CO2 pre-industrial to 384 ppm today result in? Nothing? "Not much"? About 37% of 3.2C (without any positive feedbacks)?
CO2 is the problem, the climate was working fine with the water vapor.
The biggest problem is the very inconvenient truth that the climate is constantly changing, sometimes getting warmer, sometimes cooler.
And you are claiming that there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for those changes.
If the carbon dioxide makes up only 0.04% of the atmosphere (which it is), increasing it to 0.05% won't make a difference in the water vapor.
If the alcohol makes up only 0.04% of your blood, increasing it to 0.05% won't make a difference in your soberness.
Are you that naive? Let put it to you this way if you were a college professor and wanted a grant for the study of the breeding habits of say, pigeons... I guarantee you if you append the application with 'and the effect of global warming on them' you're far more likely to get a grant.
Actually, he could make a huge fortune if he added "and proof that there is no man-made Global Warming".
Hah! We are now well overdue for solar cycle 24 and haven't had a sunspot for a month. Our theory is simple. If there are no sunspots, the planet cools, otherwise, it gets warmer. Fancy that, the planet has actually cooled somewhat this year, despite the increases in CO2.
Then why doesn't simply temperature go up and down in nice (aprox.) 11 year cycles? Maybe your theory is too simple?
Well, it looked like you tried to imply that global warming was caused partially by the building of the Panama Canal, specially after you mentioned the troglodites and industry.
If I was mistaken, forgive me, but you never know what people really try to say when in slashdot. Oh well. I guess I got too paranoid of Global warming skeptics.
Actually, what he did try to imply was that Global Warming is caused by something akin to two continents colliding, just that nobody has mentioned yet.
Why are alternative ideas labeled conspiracy theory only when in relation to global warming and 9/11?
He wasn't talking about any scientific theories, he was rambling how any alternative scientific theories are being suppressed by some vast CONSPIRACY.
Geesus, do you have trouble understanding words as simple as "could"? No wonder you have problem with understanding much more complex things like Global Warming.
The Northern Passage, by the way, has been navigated at least 100 times since the start of the century
I wonder why you forgot to mention that these trips usually took several years, with long stays in harbors during the winter.
And you have apparently are not up to date on the volcanic activity on the ocean floor in the Arctic.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/whats-up-with-volcanoes-under-arctic-sea-ice/:
I queried a heap of the Arctic oceanographers and climate and ice experts Iâ(TM)ve gotten to know since my North Pole journey in 2003. They uniformly reject the idea that heat from the bottom â" either from the general geothermal activity beneath the seabed or the occasional outbursts of lava or vents â" could have a significant impact on the veneer of floating, drifting ice on the surface.
And besides: there is no indication that there has been any change in activity in the last centuries.
Nasa is calling your statistic irrelevant. Not to mention that 1934 was warmer than 2001 by about 0.1 degrees celsius.
Actually, it is only about 0.02 ÂC (according to the link).
There was no need for Clinton to sign it, Al Gore did it for him. But without ratification that's meaningless.
Good job of the Bush regime to run down the economy! To think he did it all for he environment. Well, he and rising oil price.
Kinda funny though, how we had a mild summer, and yet in spring, you had all those people predicting that the arctic would be ice-free by July.
Excuse me? Who predicted all the Arctic ice would be gone? Anyway: The Arctic has become an island for the first time in modern human history.
You know, just claiming stuff really proves your point.