If your idea of a "not completely decided science" is one in which we "get new information daily" then there is no completely decided science. I haven't seen any information contrary to the hypothesis of AGW. I see lots of claims of this evidence, just like I see lots of claims that evolution is not how the variety of species came to be, or claims that the theory of relativity is all wrong. These are all examples of "fact-free science", in that they do not involve scientific evidence. What scientific evidence contrary to AGW do you think you've seen?
Where are we going to put 20 new trees per year per person? It sounds like a big deal to me... work out the numbers. Besides, even if we plant 20 trees per person per year, they won't grow to full size in one year. Read up on carbon sequestration to get an idea of the scale of what you're proposing.
We emit over 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide per per. That's over 4 tons for every person on the planet. Is every person going to be able to grow tons of plants every year? If not, we need to either reduce emissions or find a way of scrubbing the carbon dioxide out of the air and sequester it to prevent carbon dioxide levels from rising.
But who else will convince Prof. Faulken to teach Joshua that the only winning move is not to play? And besides, grades want to be A's and I don't believe in GPAs. Also, the entire education system is broken, so it's our moral imperative to break the rules.
South Korea is not far behind China at 24.8%. I think it's largely because until recently, you had to use a particular ActiveX plugin to do online banking with Korean banks, and ActiveX works only with Internet Explorer. Of course, that is probably not the whole story, because anyone running Windows XP and higher could at least run a newer version of IE. Whatever the reason, they could stand to make a Korean version of the site, because Korea has become a tech leader, and perhaps getting Koreans to upgrade would help Chinese to upgrade too.
From what I can see, it didn't have sources. The references were to the Old Man Murray site itself, a primary source, and blogs, which are not reliable sources. Wikipedia articles should have references to reliable secondary sources. This is the notability guideline. Wikipedia is meant to condense information written in reliable secondary sources, that is, edited books, periodicals and websites, about the topic of the article. If there were no secondary sources from which to condense information into a Wikipedia article, what can you write in the article?
That's my take on it to. The arguments that Manning did something good seem to go something like this... Manning disobeyed orders, and so did some heroes in the past such as Nazis who refused to kill innocents, the Libyan jet pilots who refused to kill civilians, and Rosa Parks. Therefore, Manning must also be a hero. What's missing is that someone should show that Manning was trying to accomplish something noble, so that his actions had a great benefit. It will take more than arguing... Manning is a whistle blower, and some whistle blowers in the past benefited society by their whistle blowing. Therefore, Manning's actions benefit society.
It might be the right thing to not follow order sometimes, at least when you're asked to do something morally wrong such as killing innocent citizens. Was this the nature of Manning's refusal to follow orders? In any case, if you don't follow orders, you should be prepared to suffer the consequences, even if not following orders was the right thing to do.
I don't mean a sequential chain of stars. I mean material from different stars coming together. When the Milky Way first formed, large stars would have quickly formed and gone supernova. That gas had billions of years to circle the Milky Way many times. In fact the Milky Way was formed from many different galaxies, so the supernovae could have been from different galaxies. The gas from all the supernovae would just mix together. Are the interstellar gas clouds we observe all each from just one star? Or are they a mix of many supernova remnants plus the original gas the Milky Way formed from all mixed up over billions of years?
First, red giants are the last phase of stars that live a long time, and they generally don't go supernova. I think that created the heavy elements in our solar system were blue giants that burn their nuclear fuel quickly and generally go supernova. Second, what makes you think the material that formed the solar system came from only one supernova? I was always under the impression that it came from multiple supernova events. Do we know which is the case?
The solar systems are bizarre only from a subjective viewpoint of considering our solar system normal. It could be that a solar system with near circular orbits and with small, rocky planets near the star and gas giants further away is actually unlikely and bizarre.
There is a bias in the sampling. Current methods of detecting extrasolar planets favor finding large planets that orbit quickly. It could be that solar systems with Mars-sized planets that take 100 Earth years to orbit their sun are most common, but Kepler will have a hard time finding those. It may take a long time before we discover what a truly "typical" solar system is like.
Yes, the statement "if App Store generic, then so is Windows", is logically equivalent to (the contrapositive of) "Windows is not generic, then neither is App Store". Microsoft's success at defending the Windows trademark therefore is a precedent for Apple successfully defending the App Store trademark.
But Microsoft does sue companies that make products with names similar to Windows. They sued Lindows. If Microsoft can successfully sue over the Windows trademark, why can't Apple successfully sue over the App Store trademark?
Similarly, Apple used the term windows before Microsoft created Windows. If your argument that App Store is a generic term is valid, then Windows is also generic. That is Apple's point.
How about to save memory? Most of the memory use in a browser is information that is not specific to one tab. If you don't share it, memory use would climb sky high as you opened more tabs. Not to mention that your idea would mean re-writing the entire browser, and would not even remove all memory leaks, which was the reason you suggested the idea in the first place. I don't want a browser that implements your idea. I like Chrome's idea of each tab and plugin being a separate process, with some memory sharing, but it still takes lots more memory than Firefox's approach -- it doesn't conserve memory as you're trying to imply.
Not just somebody. The original reporter. The only person who seems to have ever been able to reproduce the bug. Try a new profile. (This doesn't mean that bugs that happen only with a certain kind of profile aren't important, but it depends on a certain kind of profile to reproduce that bug, so the next step is to find what about that profile causes the bug, so why that difference causes the bug can be examined so the bug can be fixed.)
Why would you need different branches of code for different versions of Firefox? If you need to, you have bigger problems that worrying about how often Mozilla releases browsers.
It's a nice idea, but it's not going to fix every memory leak. Even garbage collected systems have memory leaks. A web browser is far, far more complicated than you're thinking. One reason your idea won't work is that many objects are not owned by a single tab.
Slashdot Mirror
If your idea of a "not completely decided science" is one in which we "get new information daily" then there is no completely decided science. I haven't seen any information contrary to the hypothesis of AGW. I see lots of claims of this evidence, just like I see lots of claims that evolution is not how the variety of species came to be, or claims that the theory of relativity is all wrong. These are all examples of "fact-free science", in that they do not involve scientific evidence. What scientific evidence contrary to AGW do you think you've seen?
Where are we going to put 20 new trees per year per person? It sounds like a big deal to me... work out the numbers. Besides, even if we plant 20 trees per person per year, they won't grow to full size in one year. Read up on carbon sequestration to get an idea of the scale of what you're proposing.
We emit over 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide per per. That's over 4 tons for every person on the planet. Is every person going to be able to grow tons of plants every year? If not, we need to either reduce emissions or find a way of scrubbing the carbon dioxide out of the air and sequester it to prevent carbon dioxide levels from rising.
But who else will convince Prof. Faulken to teach Joshua that the only winning move is not to play? And besides, grades want to be A's and I don't believe in GPAs. Also, the entire education system is broken, so it's our moral imperative to break the rules.
South Korea is not far behind China at 24.8%. I think it's largely because until recently, you had to use a particular ActiveX plugin to do online banking with Korean banks, and ActiveX works only with Internet Explorer. Of course, that is probably not the whole story, because anyone running Windows XP and higher could at least run a newer version of IE. Whatever the reason, they could stand to make a Korean version of the site, because Korea has become a tech leader, and perhaps getting Koreans to upgrade would help Chinese to upgrade too.
From what I can see, it didn't have sources. The references were to the Old Man Murray site itself, a primary source, and blogs, which are not reliable sources. Wikipedia articles should have references to reliable secondary sources. This is the notability guideline. Wikipedia is meant to condense information written in reliable secondary sources, that is, edited books, periodicals and websites, about the topic of the article. If there were no secondary sources from which to condense information into a Wikipedia article, what can you write in the article?
That's my take on it to. The arguments that Manning did something good seem to go something like this... Manning disobeyed orders, and so did some heroes in the past such as Nazis who refused to kill innocents, the Libyan jet pilots who refused to kill civilians, and Rosa Parks. Therefore, Manning must also be a hero. What's missing is that someone should show that Manning was trying to accomplish something noble, so that his actions had a great benefit. It will take more than arguing... Manning is a whistle blower, and some whistle blowers in the past benefited society by their whistle blowing. Therefore, Manning's actions benefit society.
It might be the right thing to not follow order sometimes, at least when you're asked to do something morally wrong such as killing innocent citizens. Was this the nature of Manning's refusal to follow orders? In any case, if you don't follow orders, you should be prepared to suffer the consequences, even if not following orders was the right thing to do.
That's all well and good, but we shouldn't be shocked when the person who broke the law gets the penalty imposed by the law. It's to be expected.
Obvious. It occurred after the leak, so it was obviously because of the leak.
I don't mean a sequential chain of stars. I mean material from different stars coming together. When the Milky Way first formed, large stars would have quickly formed and gone supernova. That gas had billions of years to circle the Milky Way many times. In fact the Milky Way was formed from many different galaxies, so the supernovae could have been from different galaxies. The gas from all the supernovae would just mix together. Are the interstellar gas clouds we observe all each from just one star? Or are they a mix of many supernova remnants plus the original gas the Milky Way formed from all mixed up over billions of years?
How can it be compensated for, if we don't know what Kepler isn't observing?
First, red giants are the last phase of stars that live a long time, and they generally don't go supernova. I think that created the heavy elements in our solar system were blue giants that burn their nuclear fuel quickly and generally go supernova. Second, what makes you think the material that formed the solar system came from only one supernova? I was always under the impression that it came from multiple supernova events. Do we know which is the case?
The solar systems are bizarre only from a subjective viewpoint of considering our solar system normal. It could be that a solar system with near circular orbits and with small, rocky planets near the star and gas giants further away is actually unlikely and bizarre.
There is a bias in the sampling. Current methods of detecting extrasolar planets favor finding large planets that orbit quickly. It could be that solar systems with Mars-sized planets that take 100 Earth years to orbit their sun are most common, but Kepler will have a hard time finding those. It may take a long time before we discover what a truly "typical" solar system is like.
Yes, the statement "if App Store generic, then so is Windows", is logically equivalent to (the contrapositive of) "Windows is not generic, then neither is App Store". Microsoft's success at defending the Windows trademark therefore is a precedent for Apple successfully defending the App Store trademark.
But Microsoft does sue companies that make products with names similar to Windows. They sued Lindows. If Microsoft can successfully sue over the Windows trademark, why can't Apple successfully sue over the App Store trademark?
Similarly, Apple used the term windows before Microsoft created Windows. If your argument that App Store is a generic term is valid, then Windows is also generic. That is Apple's point.
This isn't about copyright. It's about trademarks.
Try Tools | Start Private Browsing, and AdBlock Plus.
How about to save memory? Most of the memory use in a browser is information that is not specific to one tab. If you don't share it, memory use would climb sky high as you opened more tabs. Not to mention that your idea would mean re-writing the entire browser, and would not even remove all memory leaks, which was the reason you suggested the idea in the first place. I don't want a browser that implements your idea. I like Chrome's idea of each tab and plugin being a separate process, with some memory sharing, but it still takes lots more memory than Firefox's approach -- it doesn't conserve memory as you're trying to imply.
Why not ask the person I replied to? He's the one that complained that Google Docs doesn't have print preview. I'm as confused by his post as you are.
Not just somebody. The original reporter. The only person who seems to have ever been able to reproduce the bug. Try a new profile. (This doesn't mean that bugs that happen only with a certain kind of profile aren't important, but it depends on a certain kind of profile to reproduce that bug, so the next step is to find what about that profile causes the bug, so why that difference causes the bug can be examined so the bug can be fixed.)
Why would you need different branches of code for different versions of Firefox? If you need to, you have bigger problems that worrying about how often Mozilla releases browsers.
It's a nice idea, but it's not going to fix every memory leak. Even garbage collected systems have memory leaks. A web browser is far, far more complicated than you're thinking. One reason your idea won't work is that many objects are not owned by a single tab.