Religions typically teach the "One True Belief" on a subject and ask the followers to "believe without proof, as an exercise of their faith," not science.
You only have limited amounts of time to teach different subjects. You are supposed to teach those subjects, and you are supposed to teach them as fact. That's got nothing to do with religion or faith, but about sticking to what they kids are supposed to learn.
Until I hear environmentalists address why in the Earth's several billion years temperatures in the 1800's are the perfect climate that we must not diverge from.
Straw man.
Until I hear environmentalists explaining that climate change is constant
Another straw man.
Come on, you can do better than that. Are you that ignorant of what the science says?
No, you are getting it wrong. Teach the children the science, not the non or anti-science. They don't need to be "challenged" by feeding them bullshit.
Ok, I agree that the headline is extremely misleading, and yet another disgusting move by Faux News, but I am not at all surprised that they picked Angry Birds if they were already going to spread FUD about games anyway.
I mean, why would they pick anything else when Angry Bird is probably the most well known game written using this language? Using some random title no one knows about wouldn't have nearly the same effect. But now the attention of the Faux News audience is captured using a game they are quite likely to be familiar with.
So while the sensationalist article is a bunch of crap, the choice of game is not exactly surprising.
Didn't Apple sue HTC first? Comparing Google supporting its partner to protect Android to Microsoft and Nokia using proxies to harass other companies is just silly.
iPhones come with Safari and few people ever install another browser. Android phones come with a stock browser and few people install another browser. Opera has little potential to help Facebook crack the smart phone marketing problem.
That's a silly statement. Opera got 8 million new active users in March alone. The number of smartphone users in Opera's mobile user base is approaching 50%. Remember, people do install other browsers (obviously), and Opera has deals with most major carriers to distribute it on their phones.
If they had offered a Firefox-like Add-on system and done a similar marketing (think: Firefox logo), they would be the most popular browser instead today.
The marketing Firefox got was, among other things, Google paying webmasters to distribute it. So basically, Google helped make Firefox big. Not the logo.
Opera is no longer, no matter what their home page says, the fastest browser in the business.
I disagree.
There's more to speed than browser benchmarks. JavaScript speed between browsers is indistinguishable to the user. What makes Opera much faster than anyone else is the way you can get stuff done.
I regularly have more than 100 tabs open in Opera. Other browsers can't handle even half of that before they grind to a halt. I move around using Opera's extensive keyboard shortcuts and mouse gestures. Sure, you can download various half-assed extensions for other browsers that emulate this, but nothing beats native, full-speed features.
And if I do have a lot of tabs open, I use the Windows panel to give me real-time filtering of tabs, making it extremely easy to find what I'm looking for.
And those are just a few examples of why Opera is faster in actual usage than other browsers. The fact that it doesn't die when you open more than a few tabs sets it apart from other browsers.
Also, Facebook could need Opera's mobile expertise, and of course Opera's huge market share in emerging markets where Facebook is struggling to get in.
I'm not the one making excuses. You are the one who made claims about what the IPCC reports allegedly said, and failed to provide any sources.
Your BBC article (which is irrelevant since you actually claimed that "they" was referring to Hansen, Jones and Mann (even though you originally referred to the IPCC when I asked you for sources). Well, you have failed to come up with any sources for either of these. All you had was a BBC article that mentioned ice-free summers as a possibility by 2013, and that comment had been criticized by other scientists.
You need to stop asking for sources until you have provided yours.
Exactly. You claimed that the IPCC had made specific predictions, and failed to produce a source for that claim. It is not my job to try to dig through tousands of pages of IPCC reports to support your claim.
You posted an article which did not even support your claim. But your original claim was about the IPCC predicting an ice-free arctic.
If "they" made predictions, where are the sources showing that Hansen, Mann and Jones predicted an ice-free arctic by 2013? Al Gore is irrelevant because he is not scientist. But now you have made a specific claim about specific scientists (even though you originally referred to the IPCC).
Why do you expect me to provide you with citations when you refuse to give me yours? I'm not going to spend time digging up citations for you if you refuse to provide yours.
You did not provide a source. Your original claim was about the IPCC: "It's all there in the various IPCC reports"
The BBC article was about a single scientist who said that ice-free arctic summers by 2013 were a possibility, something he was criticized over by his peers.
And now you claim "their" prediction. Who are they? That guy?
You said you were referring to the IPCC, and now you are referring to "they" again, and "they" obviously means the IPCC. Otherwise you would have written "him" or something like that.
No, I dismissed them because you failed to provide sources for your claims. Unsourced claims are useless. The "source" you did provide did not show that the IPCC said the things you claimed they did.
No, you provided an article which listed ice free Arctic summers in 2013 as a possibility. It isn't even an article based on anything from the IPCC, which is what you claimed you were referring to ("no, citations aren't needed douchebag. It's all there in the various IPCC reports" here).
Indeed, the prediction was met with criticism from other scientists, showing that it wasn't even close to being the consensus. Your claim was that "they" (the scientific community, right? Who else could these "they" be?) made specific predictions, but only one scientist did, and he merely predicted it as a possibility, and that was criticized by other scientists. And again, you claimed it was a conclusion by the IPCC.
So you lied. No one predicted that the Arctic would be ice free by 2013. The researcher (and not the scientific community as a whole) said it was a possibility, and only during summer. The IPCC did not (or you have not provided a valid source showing that they did).
You have failed to produce the alleged IPCC reports which conclude that Arctic ice will be gone by 2013 (and indeed, it needs to be an actual conclusion that this will happen). This is what you need to produce. Put up or shut up.
So, is actual BT usage going down, or is something else simply growing much faster?
Actually, the article states:
it's clear there's little to no growth in BitTorrent use
But:
These numbers don't take into account that absolute traffic has increased
So what does that mean? How did they conclude that there's little to no growth if the numbers don't even take a very important fact like absolute traffic growth into account? Just wild guessing?
And little to no growth doesn't mean decline. It means it's stable. So it's not really accurate to claim that "BitTorrent Traffic Falls In the U.S."
Maybe one will have to read the full report, and it's all there. But I don't think the linked article supports the assertion that BitTorrent traffic is falling in the US. At worst, it's growing slower than other services.
That sounds a lot like Google's business plan for their search engine. Give it away for free, and make ads dirt cheap. But get enough ads and all those tiny sums turn into huge piles of cash. Why wouldn't that work with Android?
Slashdot Mirror
You only have limited amounts of time to teach different subjects. You are supposed to teach those subjects, and you are supposed to teach them as fact. That's got nothing to do with religion or faith, but about sticking to what they kids are supposed to learn.
Straw man.
Another straw man.
Come on, you can do better than that. Are you that ignorant of what the science says?
No, you are getting it wrong. Teach the children the science, not the non or anti-science. They don't need to be "challenged" by feeding them bullshit.
Why would people not install a new browser on their phones if they do so on their PCs?
Ok, I agree that the headline is extremely misleading, and yet another disgusting move by Faux News, but I am not at all surprised that they picked Angry Birds if they were already going to spread FUD about games anyway.
I mean, why would they pick anything else when Angry Bird is probably the most well known game written using this language? Using some random title no one knows about wouldn't have nearly the same effect. But now the attention of the Faux News audience is captured using a game they are quite likely to be familiar with.
So while the sensationalist article is a bunch of crap, the choice of game is not exactly surprising.
The number of Firefox and Chrome users is vanishingly small?
Yes, the numbers are actual users, not just installs.
If they don't use it, they are not counted as users.
Didn't Apple sue HTC first? Comparing Google supporting its partner to protect Android to Microsoft and Nokia using proxies to harass other companies is just silly.
Except people do install other browsers on their phones, and they do use the browser their carrier tells them to.
That's a silly statement. Opera got 8 million new active users in March alone. The number of smartphone users in Opera's mobile user base is approaching 50%. Remember, people do install other browsers (obviously), and Opera has deals with most major carriers to distribute it on their phones.
The marketing Firefox got was, among other things, Google paying webmasters to distribute it. So basically, Google helped make Firefox big. Not the logo.
Your tin foil hat looks good on you.
Those are video and image decoders. They've got nothing whatsoever to do with reporting anything to Google.
You can even look at the source code.
Did you actually check the facts before posting your comment?
Doesn't Chrome use more memory than Firefox these days? And by design, no less!
I disagree.
There's more to speed than browser benchmarks. JavaScript speed between browsers is indistinguishable to the user. What makes Opera much faster than anyone else is the way you can get stuff done.
I regularly have more than 100 tabs open in Opera. Other browsers can't handle even half of that before they grind to a halt. I move around using Opera's extensive keyboard shortcuts and mouse gestures. Sure, you can download various half-assed extensions for other browsers that emulate this, but nothing beats native, full-speed features.
And if I do have a lot of tabs open, I use the Windows panel to give me real-time filtering of tabs, making it extremely easy to find what I'm looking for.
And those are just a few examples of why Opera is faster in actual usage than other browsers. The fact that it doesn't die when you open more than a few tabs sets it apart from other browsers.
Also, Facebook could need Opera's mobile expertise, and of course Opera's huge market share in emerging markets where Facebook is struggling to get in.
I'm not the one making excuses. You are the one who made claims about what the IPCC reports allegedly said, and failed to provide any sources.
Your BBC article (which is irrelevant since you actually claimed that "they" was referring to Hansen, Jones and Mann (even though you originally referred to the IPCC when I asked you for sources). Well, you have failed to come up with any sources for either of these. All you had was a BBC article that mentioned ice-free summers as a possibility by 2013, and that comment had been criticized by other scientists.
You need to stop asking for sources until you have provided yours.
Put up or shut up.
Fail? When I asked you for sources, you replied: "no, citations aren't needed douchebag. It's all there in the various IPCC reports."
In other words, you claimed it was all in the IPCC reports. So now you need to show exactly where.
Put up or shut up.
Exactly. You claimed that the IPCC had made specific predictions, and failed to produce a source for that claim. It is not my job to try to dig through tousands of pages of IPCC reports to support your claim.
You posted an article which did not even support your claim. But your original claim was about the IPCC predicting an ice-free arctic.
If "they" made predictions, where are the sources showing that Hansen, Mann and Jones predicted an ice-free arctic by 2013? Al Gore is irrelevant because he is not scientist. But now you have made a specific claim about specific scientists (even though you originally referred to the IPCC).
Why do you expect me to provide you with citations when you refuse to give me yours? I'm not going to spend time digging up citations for you if you refuse to provide yours.
You did not provide a source. Your original claim was about the IPCC: "It's all there in the various IPCC reports"
The BBC article was about a single scientist who said that ice-free arctic summers by 2013 were a possibility, something he was criticized over by his peers.
And now you claim "their" prediction. Who are they? That guy?
You said you were referring to the IPCC, and now you are referring to "they" again, and "they" obviously means the IPCC. Otherwise you would have written "him" or something like that.
Put up or shut up.
No, I dismissed them because you failed to provide sources for your claims. Unsourced claims are useless. The "source" you did provide did not show that the IPCC said the things you claimed they did.
No, you provided an article which listed ice free Arctic summers in 2013 as a possibility. It isn't even an article based on anything from the IPCC, which is what you claimed you were referring to ("no, citations aren't needed douchebag. It's all there in the various IPCC reports" here).
Indeed, the prediction was met with criticism from other scientists, showing that it wasn't even close to being the consensus. Your claim was that "they" (the scientific community, right? Who else could these "they" be?) made specific predictions, but only one scientist did, and he merely predicted it as a possibility, and that was criticized by other scientists. And again, you claimed it was a conclusion by the IPCC.
So you lied. No one predicted that the Arctic would be ice free by 2013. The researcher (and not the scientific community as a whole) said it was a possibility, and only during summer. The IPCC did not (or you have not provided a valid source showing that they did).
You have failed to produce the alleged IPCC reports which conclude that Arctic ice will be gone by 2013 (and indeed, it needs to be an actual conclusion that this will happen). This is what you need to produce. Put up or shut up.
Wait a minute, you are the one who made claims and refused to provide sources. Put up or shut up.
So, is actual BT usage going down, or is something else simply growing much faster?
Actually, the article states:
But:
So what does that mean? How did they conclude that there's little to no growth if the numbers don't even take a very important fact like absolute traffic growth into account? Just wild guessing?
And little to no growth doesn't mean decline. It means it's stable. So it's not really accurate to claim that "BitTorrent Traffic Falls In the U.S."
Maybe one will have to read the full report, and it's all there. But I don't think the linked article supports the assertion that BitTorrent traffic is falling in the US. At worst, it's growing slower than other services.
That sounds a lot like Google's business plan for their search engine. Give it away for free, and make ads dirt cheap. But get enough ads and all those tiny sums turn into huge piles of cash. Why wouldn't that work with Android?
You did not provide valid citations. You came up with an article that didn't even support your lies. You have been exposed.