Anyway, the important thing here should be how to improve peoples lives. You're not a doctor, so shut up. I say let people do research to determine what's actualy better.
I don't think there's anything wrong with opening a new window when you click an add, it's not the same thing as a popup, and most of the time it's the choice of the website admin, not the advertizer.
Also, lots of people prefer opening new sites in new windows. Myself included.
can't prove those things don't have an effect.
This isn't about proof in the mathematical sense; this is about the real world. You can never 'prove' anything in the real world 100%, you can only come up with evidence until the evidence is overwhelming.
If someone presents some evidence for something, and other people believe it, you need to explain why it's not true, not pretend it doesn't exist.
If you want anyone to believe you explain why the theories are wrong. If you don't, no one will take you seriously.
That's a nice example, and it works well because we know for a fact that masturbation doesn't cause eyesight loss. But lets examine another one, one from the real world.
A few years ago, some doctors noticed that there was a certain kind of bacteria that lived in stomach ulcers, a high correlation just like the rise in temperature and greenhouse gasses. Anyway, some people suggested that perhaps the bacteria caused the ulcers, but people were skeptical. Perhaps it was just an opportunistic infection, you know, it was easy for them to live there due to the damage cells.
So, either the bacteria caused the ulcers or the ulcers caused the bacteria. Which one was it? Medical researches didn't believe the bacteria caused the ulcers, and traditional remedies were continued (you know, lots of bland food, stress free lives, etc). I would say that there was some evidence, you would say there was none. Apparently a correlation isn't evidence in your eyes, right?
Eventually, one of the people who believed the bacteria caused the ulcer simply ate a large quantity of it, and came down with all kinds of gastro-intestinal problems. Including ulcers. Now we know that ulcers are caused by the bacteria, and that they can for the most part be cured by antibiotics.
If you had ulcers, would you have waited until the final study, the one where the scientist infected himself before trying antibiotics to cure an ulcer?
By the way, those same researchers have discovered a bacteria that is often found in people with heart disease. I don't think there are going to be many scientists willing to inject themselves with this. Should we change treatments now? Or should we go on and say it's just a bunch of BS?
Since there is zero evidence of human activity having an effect, there is no point in being "cautious" in regards to global warming.
I admit that we don't know all there is to know about global warming, but how can you honestly say there is *zero* evidence? We know for a fact that Co2 is a greenhouse gas, and we know for a fact that we produce shitloads of it. What else is there to know?
Serously, what kind of evidence would convince you that humans could have an impact on global temprature?
Days of denial are over.
on
Baked Alaska
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
It seems to me that anti-global warming advocates are made up of the same kind of people who are anti-evolution. Their main reason for doubt is that it conflicts with their biases (in the case of global warming, that's largely commercial or ideological, with evolution it's religious).
Of course both groups have lots of 'scientific' evidence that mostly amounts a few anecdotes in comparison to the huge reams of evidence that the supporters have, but are yelled very loudly.
Also, both groups demand from their adversaries 'irrefutable proof' that evolution/global warming is true, even though a 'logical proof' of an empirical phenomena is impossible. You can't prove evolution and global warming the same way you can prove that 1+1=2. You can't even prove gravity to that extent.
Finally, if this report is true, and these weather changes are happening all over Alaska, it really should be enough evidence that something is happening. Alaska is pretty big, and the effect can't really be called 'local'. It's at least regional.
Finally, it comes to the question of cyclical vs. artificial warming. Is the earth getting warmer just because it is, or is it getting warmer because of something we're doing? Certainly, humanity is producing lots of CO2, but the amount isn't really that much compared the naturally occurring water vapor. Honestly I'm not sure if science really has the answer. But I do really think we need to be cautious about it. The effects of global warming could be pretty dire.
A while ago I read a slashdot post about global warming, and the poster said he opposed any kind of change in regulation unless we could be 100% sure. If you ask me, that's pretty stupid. It's like driving towards a cliff and being opposed to a change in direction unless you were 100% sure there was a cliff there, the argument being the trip would be longer assuming there was no cliff (or something equally stupid).
Perhaps there would be some economic constraints caused by greenhouse gas controls, but they would probably be a lot better then the economic problems caused by global warming.
Just last week, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology named Seth Lloyd published a paper in Physical Review Letters estimating how many calculations the universe could have performed since the Big Bang -- 10120 operations on 1090 bits of data, putting the mightiest
Hrm, think they meant 10^120 and 10^90 there. Even the 4004 could handle that:P
You know, not all viruses will damage your system, some are just intent on spreading, and stay hidden from the user.
And I disagree that it's like using a condom. A condom is a physical thing that actively prevents anything from going through. Actually, antivirus software is more like spermicide. Anyway
"pull out before cumming" or "only do it after your wife was on the rag" are general practices you can follow for not getting a woman pregnant, just like Michael's general practices for avoiding a virus. It might lower the risk, but it won't actually stop a virus that works around those
There could be viruses for Linux out there, someone could find a hole in Eudora; a virus could come with 'regular' software (look at the vs.net article above), etc. None of those things would help you if you came across such a virus.
Yes, the L stands for Language, a markup language, not a programming language. English is a language too, but that dosn't mean it will run on a computer
Even with ECMA script, a web site should never be able to exicute native code on the system, but sometimes they can due to software bugs.
It's true that JPEGs don't contain any code to exicute, if there was a bug in a jpeg rendering library, then it might be possible to create a virus using this bug.
Now, if you know much about computing, you may be a little suspicious of this. JPEGs are compressed image files that only contain data representing an image to be displayed, not code to be executed. A modification of that data might screw up the picture of your cat dangling from the edge of the kitchen table you like so much, but it won't turn the image into a potential virus transmitter, because the programs that display JPEGs don't read them with an eye toward executing the code
No, and HTML readers don't download HTML with an expectation to run the code natively, but it can happen thanks to bugs in IE.
Just like Outlook, the program you deride for its ubiquity, a huge, huge number of jpegs are viewed through the Microsoft libraries. If a hole was discovered in that library, it could be used as a vector for viruses.
The truth of the matter is that if you run windows, there is a real risk of getting a virus from things other then just running.exe files. In windows 98/2k you can be infected simply by clicking on a file once (because of the little preview window thing). Holes in Word, outlook, IE, IIS, and even windows explorer have made things completely ridiculous.
Also, Your list of things not to do to catch a virus reminds me like avoiding pregnancy via the 'pull out' method. Sure it might improve your chances, but it won't 'protect' you in any real sense.
I don't think viruses on Linux have any real future, due to the fact that the most obvious holes would get fixed quickly, but if you run windows you really should get some Anti virus software.
Yes, but what gives him the right? The elected government of south africa should be able to control the.za domain as a matter of course.
If this person wants to change the way the government handles the way the domain is used, he should lobby them that way. Just taking the zone files out of the country isn't going to do anything.
Btw, all south africa needs to do to get around this guy would be to get the root name servers to point somewhere else for.za.
Um, shouldn't the government be in charge of the.za domain name? I mean who do you think should be? some random person who happens to have control at the moment?
Country codes are for countries, and decisions for the countries are made by their governments.
- complex concepts can be explained simply by connecting lots of simple words, without any form of connection between the words but a space. In other languages you have difficult forms of connection between the simple words (I'm thinking of german here).
Same as in chinese
- although there are plenty of ways to cnojugate a verb, you can cover all times with very little conjugations.
Chinese has no conjugations what so ever. No tenses either.
Chinese grammar is much simpler then english. You don't even have connecting words like 'the' or 'is' to stick in sentances. Something like "I want to go to the store" in english is "wo xiang chu shangdian" in chinese, literaly "I want go store". Much simpler.
Slashdot Mirror
Is that like "big tabacco"?
Anyway, the important thing here should be how to improve peoples lives. You're not a doctor, so shut up. I say let people do research to determine what's actualy better.
To me, Alltheweb really does have a superious sense of style, its more estheticly pleasing. And even with the banners it's still really fast
I'm probably going to start using both regularly.
I don't think there's anything wrong with opening a new window when you click an add, it's not the same thing as a popup, and most of the time it's the choice of the website admin, not the advertizer.
Also, lots of people prefer opening new sites in new windows. Myself included.
Comes up with more hits for my name then google.
I can't belive how many people have my "Subtle mind control? why do all the HTML buttons say 'submit'" quote on their sites.
People who are angry are always wrong.
I don't know if you realize it or not, but nothing you said discredits anything he said. It's just and ad-homonym attack.
can't prove those things don't have an effect. This isn't about proof in the mathematical sense; this is about the real world. You can never 'prove' anything in the real world 100%, you can only come up with evidence until the evidence is overwhelming.
If someone presents some evidence for something, and other people believe it, you need to explain why it's not true, not pretend it doesn't exist.
If you want anyone to believe you explain why the theories are wrong. If you don't, no one will take you seriously.
That's a nice example, and it works well because we know for a fact that masturbation doesn't cause eyesight loss. But lets examine another one, one from the real world.
A few years ago, some doctors noticed that there was a certain kind of bacteria that lived in stomach ulcers, a high correlation just like the rise in temperature and greenhouse gasses. Anyway, some people suggested that perhaps the bacteria caused the ulcers, but people were skeptical. Perhaps it was just an opportunistic infection, you know, it was easy for them to live there due to the damage cells.
So, either the bacteria caused the ulcers or the ulcers caused the bacteria. Which one was it? Medical researches didn't believe the bacteria caused the ulcers, and traditional remedies were continued (you know, lots of bland food, stress free lives, etc). I would say that there was some evidence, you would say there was none. Apparently a correlation isn't evidence in your eyes, right?
Eventually, one of the people who believed the bacteria caused the ulcer simply ate a large quantity of it, and came down with all kinds of gastro-intestinal problems. Including ulcers. Now we know that ulcers are caused by the bacteria, and that they can for the most part be cured by antibiotics.
If you had ulcers, would you have waited until the final study, the one where the scientist infected himself before trying antibiotics to cure an ulcer?
By the way, those same researchers have discovered a bacteria that is often found in people with heart disease. I don't think there are going to be many scientists willing to inject themselves with this. Should we change treatments now? Or should we go on and say it's just a bunch of BS?
Since there is zero evidence of human activity having an effect, there is no point in being "cautious" in regards to global warming.
I admit that we don't know all there is to know about global warming, but how can you honestly say there is *zero* evidence? We know for a fact that Co2 is a greenhouse gas, and we know for a fact that we produce shitloads of it. What else is there to know?
Serously, what kind of evidence would convince you that humans could have an impact on global temprature?
It seems to me that anti-global warming advocates are made up of the same kind of people who are anti-evolution. Their main reason for doubt is that it conflicts with their biases (in the case of global warming, that's largely commercial or ideological, with evolution it's religious).
Of course both groups have lots of 'scientific' evidence that mostly amounts a few anecdotes in comparison to the huge reams of evidence that the supporters have, but are yelled very loudly.
Also, both groups demand from their adversaries 'irrefutable proof' that evolution/global warming is true, even though a 'logical proof' of an empirical phenomena is impossible. You can't prove evolution and global warming the same way you can prove that 1+1=2. You can't even prove gravity to that extent.
Finally, if this report is true, and these weather changes are happening all over Alaska, it really should be enough evidence that something is happening. Alaska is pretty big, and the effect can't really be called 'local'. It's at least regional.
Finally, it comes to the question of cyclical vs. artificial warming. Is the earth getting warmer just because it is, or is it getting warmer because of something we're doing? Certainly, humanity is producing lots of CO2, but the amount isn't really that much compared the naturally occurring water vapor. Honestly I'm not sure if science really has the answer. But I do really think we need to be cautious about it. The effects of global warming could be pretty dire.
A while ago I read a slashdot post about global warming, and the poster said he opposed any kind of change in regulation unless we could be 100% sure. If you ask me, that's pretty stupid. It's like driving towards a cliff and being opposed to a change in direction unless you were 100% sure there was a cliff there, the argument being the trip would be longer assuming there was no cliff (or something equally stupid).
Perhaps there would be some economic constraints caused by greenhouse gas controls, but they would probably be a lot better then the economic problems caused by global warming.
From the artical:
:P
Just last week, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology named Seth Lloyd published a paper in Physical Review Letters estimating how many calculations the universe could have performed since the Big Bang -- 10120 operations on 1090 bits of data, putting the mightiest
Hrm, think they meant 10^120 and 10^90 there. Even the 4004 could handle that
That site has no adds, and is still up. It must be a paid account or something.
So yeh, that would probably work with Lucas, if the last two movies are any indication of his mental capability...
You know, not all viruses will damage your system, some are just intent on spreading, and stay hidden from the user.
And I disagree that it's like using a condom. A condom is a physical thing that actively prevents anything from going through. Actually, antivirus software is more like spermicide. Anyway
"pull out before cumming" or "only do it after your wife was on the rag" are general practices you can follow for not getting a woman pregnant, just like Michael's general practices for avoiding a virus. It might lower the risk, but it won't actually stop a virus that works around those
There could be viruses for Linux out there, someone could find a hole in Eudora; a virus could come with 'regular' software (look at the vs.net article above), etc. None of those things would help you if you came across such a virus.
Yes, the L stands for Language, a markup language, not a programming language. English is a language too, but that dosn't mean it will run on a computer
Even with ECMA script, a web site should never be able to exicute native code on the system, but sometimes they can due to software bugs.
It's true that JPEGs don't contain any code to exicute, if there was a bug in a jpeg rendering library, then it might be possible to create a virus using this bug.
Ever checked for spyware?
Now, if you know much about computing, you may be a little suspicious of this. JPEGs are compressed image files that only contain data representing an image to be displayed, not code to be executed. A modification of that data might screw up the picture of your cat dangling from the edge of the kitchen table you like so much, but it won't turn the image into a potential virus transmitter, because the programs that display JPEGs don't read them with an eye toward executing the code
.exe files. In windows 98/2k you can be infected simply by clicking on a file once (because of the little preview window thing). Holes in Word, outlook, IE, IIS, and even windows explorer have made things completely ridiculous.
No, and HTML readers don't download HTML with an expectation to run the code natively, but it can happen thanks to bugs in IE.
Just like Outlook, the program you deride for its ubiquity, a huge, huge number of jpegs are viewed through the Microsoft libraries. If a hole was discovered in that library, it could be used as a vector for viruses.
The truth of the matter is that if you run windows, there is a real risk of getting a virus from things other then just running
Also, Your list of things not to do to catch a virus reminds me like avoiding pregnancy via the 'pull out' method. Sure it might improve your chances, but it won't 'protect' you in any real sense.
I don't think viruses on Linux have any real future, due to the fact that the most obvious holes would get fixed quickly, but if you run windows you really should get some Anti virus software.
Why buy an inferior product when you already have something else.
Because the SCSI stuff won't read the disks with the software you want on 'em? And you'd only need the drive to install software, not all the time.
Besides, unless you're running a datacenter, putting scsi in a PC is just a complete waste of money.
sounds like you actualy have a legit reason to get one...
You can just restart the explorer program (by using the alt+ctl+delete popup) rather then the whole OS.
Yes, but what gives him the right? The elected government of south africa should be able to control the .za domain as a matter of course.
.za.
If this person wants to change the way the government handles the way the domain is used, he should lobby them that way. Just taking the zone files out of the country isn't going to do anything.
Btw, all south africa needs to do to get around this guy would be to get the root name servers to point somewhere else for
Um, shouldn't the government be in charge of the .za domain name? I mean who do you think should be? some random person who happens to have control at the moment?
Country codes are for countries, and decisions for the countries are made by their governments.
You mean like getting energy from the tides?
Hybrid cars get their power from burning gasoline in a regular car engine. They just need to burn less of it.
- gender of a word is ignored
There's no gender in chinese either.
- complex concepts can be explained simply by connecting lots of simple words, without any form of connection between the words but a space. In other languages you have difficult forms of connection between the simple words (I'm thinking of german here).
Same as in chinese
- although there are plenty of ways to cnojugate a verb, you can cover all times with very little conjugations.
Chinese has no conjugations what so ever. No tenses either.
Chinese grammar is much simpler then english. You don't even have connecting words like 'the' or 'is' to stick in sentances. Something like "I want to go to the store" in english is "wo xiang chu shangdian" in chinese, literaly "I want go store". Much simpler.
Do you live in china? Do you know anyone who lives in china? Have you ever talked to anyone who was from china?
Listen dumbass. China is not communist, you can start a bussness irrespective of the government. The chinese constitution isn't followed by anyone.
Yes, this is an instance of free enterprize being curtaled. How is it any diffrent then minimum wage and worker-saftey laws in the US?