No, the article does not put try to put a positive spin on genocide. You're reading that into the article. The article says that Khan committed genocide, and as a result, forests grew and we can measure the amount of carbon dioxide that they absorbed.
I see this type of thinking all the time. When I point out a positive about X, all people seem to read is that I said X is good. When I point out a negative about X, all people seem to read is that X is bad. Similarly, you're reading into the article the statement "Khan's actions were good."
I don't know about these so-called greenies who think humanity is a pox on earth. I think probably an environmentalist mentioned a negative effect humans have on the planet, and you read that into the statement.
You left out the most important part. It takes lots of work to find the car, but it takes a short time to check that it's the right car once it's found. In other words, if you're lucky and always guess the right car on your first try (in other words nondeterministically), you can check that it's the right solution quickly (in polynomial time). Nondeterministic polynomial time = NP.
In 3-SAT, it takes exponential of time to find the assignment to the variables that satisfies all the conditions, but it takes polynomial time to check whether a particular assignment is correct. It takes exponential time to factor a product of two large primes, but it takes polynomial time to make sure it's the correct factorization.
No, in Firefox you should not have to add everything you want. It should have enough features so that most users never need to download any extensions. I'm sure that someone can always argue that some features that are built-in should be optional, and that some features that are optional should be built-in. You can't please everyone. The bottom line is that if you want a status bar, you can get it. Quit whinging and nitpicking.
The whole point of Firefox is that extensions allow you to customize Firefox the way you want. If Firefox puts in an new feature, users scream that it's becoming bloated. If Firefox removes a feature, users scream that they're removing even the option of having the feature. They can't win, can they? I suppose they could try to change nothing, and then of source users would scream that it isn't improving as other browser are. Huh.
I've always found that Chrome uses more memory than Firefox. The last I checked, it liked to swap memory out to disk, so RAM usage is low, but then when I click on a tab I haven't used for a while, I have to wait while the process is swapped back in to RAM. I haven't found that I need to restart Chrome on a regular basis though.
The main reasons I don't use Chrome are lack of Print Preview, and the fact that any file that opens in a helper application is permanently downloaded into my downloads folder. When they fix those problems, I'll give it another try.
SVG fonts are the only thing keeping Firefox 4 from getting a 100% score on Acid3. I'm not sure if Firefox 4 passes the performance aspect, although it's probably close. I think also Firefox 4 shows a favicon in the URL bar even when it's returned with a 404 error, and if so, it doesn't fully pass the rendering aspect. In any case, it's so close to passing Acid3 that web developers and users would hardly notice the difference, aside from web developers not being able to use SVG fonts. But since WOFF fonts seem to be superior to SVG fonts and IE9 also doesn't support SVG fonts, I don't think many web developers would use SVG fonts even if Firefox 4 supported them.
Considering that Internet Explorer has been lagging in support for basic features behind Firefox, Safari, and Opera for many years, I don't think there's a double standard. If Microsoft finally catches up with IE9, there's going to be rejoicing, not complaining.
Re:Climate is what you expect...
on
Bastardi's Wager
·
· Score: 1
I see, any excuse in a storm. Discussing this with you has been hilarious.
If we keep burning fossil fuels at the present rate, we'll run out within hundreds of years. Excess carbon dioxide lasts about 1000 years in the atmosphere. If the ice age is 2000 years away, the worst thing we could do is burn fossil fuels now. We should wait until it's about to happen. Unless you have a better idea for putting trillions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that doesn't involve burning fossil fuels.
No, of course I do not accept that they have one without question. I've seen them make plenty of predictions. Here's an entire page of papers from the 1970s that make predictions. Taking a glance at the top of the page, there's a prediction of a temperature rise of 1 degree Celsius by 2000 that has come to pass.
I have to ask again. Are you retarded? How can you discuss a topic that you have absolutely no knowledge of?
Whether it has to do with warm water or warm air, the point is the same. The Earth (air, land, and water) is warming, causing ice to melt. It's not that hard to understand, now is it? I understand, it's not about whether you understand. It's about making lame excuses for the purpose of being argumentative. You don't want to understand anything at all.
The change in temperature caused by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will last only about 1000 years. I might agree with your argument, except that we would have to reduce usage of fossil fuels so we have some left when we'll need the carbon dioxide in thousands of years. We still need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by reducing use of fossil fuels. Now if the ice age were only 300 years away, you might be on to something...
You'll have to show me evidence that ice mass is rebounding from a 2007 year low. The latest I've heard is that the area of ice coverage has increased a bit, but the ice is thinning. Overall, there's been less ice mass worldwide every year. Here's data from Greenland, Canada, and the Antarctic.
Then how does science demonstrate causality? According to you, if I predict that if I throw you off a building that you'll plummet to the ground due to gravity, you'll say that it was just an amazing coincidence that you plummeted, and that it had nothing to do with gravity. Surely science gives us a was of testing a hypothesis involving causality. Think about it.
Re:Climate is what you expect...
on
Bastardi's Wager
·
· Score: 1
Ah, the moving goalposts. See, the problem there is that in 30 years you'll demand yet more evidence. Besides, the sea levels will not rise 3 feet in the next 30 years, and in any case, even if they did it would already be too late to avert disaster. This head-in-the-sand approach of not accepting there's a disaster until it's too late to prevent is guaranteed to let the disaster happen. It's a good thing world leaders don't take such an approach to dealing with AGW.
Models certainly can predict the short-term climate. We can directly measure the short-term climate.
I'm not sure why not accurately predicting the climate a very long time from now would bother you. Let's say that you're running a business and at the rate it's generating revenue and spending, it will go bankrupt in two years. Now, perhaps you could reduce spending or make a new product that could generate new revenue. The CFO asks you to predict what the profits of the company will be in ten years. You say that you can't predict that far out, because it depends on too many factors. The CFO retorts "we're supposed to accept there this magic time period over which your financial forecasts are accurate?" Does that make sense to you? Does it seem like a good argument against reducing spending or coming out with a new product the public is clamoring for? It sounds to me like the CFO is in denial about the impending bankruptcy that is inevitable unless the company changes its behavior.
It's not my hypothesis. You can look up climate research any time you want. You seem to be of the opinion that I'm trying to convince you of something. I agree I have no credibility. I'm simply stating what the expert climatologists and economists are stating. They're the ones with the credibility. Politicians are in agreement and are working on reducing carbon dioxide emissions. If anyone needs to convince anyone, you will have to work on convincing them. You'll need more than a short, quickly written Slashdot post to convince them.
Yes, there are other variables, but the system isn't really as complicated as you make it. From Arrhenius' simple calculations, you get a result that matches closely with the observed warming. I also never said CO2 was the only influence on temperature. Of course it isn't! Are you retarded?
Re:Climate is what you expect...
on
Bastardi's Wager
·
· Score: 1
If over the next 15 years we don't see further ice melt and sea level rise, I would say that it could possibly refute the theory of AGW. It certainly isn't my theory, and 15 years is too short a period of time to say for sure. I'd really want to see greatly reduced warming over the next 30 years. But in any case, I've said this for years, and every year we continue to see warmer temperatures, ice melt, and sea level rise. Every year the theory is confirmed, again and again. What would it take for you to admit AGW is a problem?
Of course there's evidence that increased temperature will be detrimental. Rising sea levels will cause hundreds of millions to relocate. You don't know a single thing about global warming, except sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting NO NO NO do you?
But climatologists have been making predictions for years. This began with Arrhenius over 100 years ago. Take a look at the IPCC report, which has several graphs that predict temperature rise and sea level rise over the next several decades.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the article does not put try to put a positive spin on genocide. You're reading that into the article. The article says that Khan committed genocide, and as a result, forests grew and we can measure the amount of carbon dioxide that they absorbed.
I see this type of thinking all the time. When I point out a positive about X, all people seem to read is that I said X is good. When I point out a negative about X, all people seem to read is that X is bad. Similarly, you're reading into the article the statement "Khan's actions were good."
I don't know about these so-called greenies who think humanity is a pox on earth. I think probably an environmentalist mentioned a negative effect humans have on the planet, and you read that into the statement.
No. It uses MMIX, a 64-bit RISC computer.
There isn't a 9 at the end. That's what the ... means. There is no end. If you sum 9*10^-n for all positive integers n, you get 1.
You left out the most important part. It takes lots of work to find the car, but it takes a short time to check that it's the right car once it's found. In other words, if you're lucky and always guess the right car on your first try (in other words nondeterministically), you can check that it's the right solution quickly (in polynomial time). Nondeterministic polynomial time = NP.
In 3-SAT, it takes exponential of time to find the assignment to the variables that satisfies all the conditions, but it takes polynomial time to check whether a particular assignment is correct. It takes exponential time to factor a product of two large primes, but it takes polynomial time to make sure it's the correct factorization.
No, in Firefox you should not have to add everything you want. It should have enough features so that most users never need to download any extensions. I'm sure that someone can always argue that some features that are built-in should be optional, and that some features that are optional should be built-in. You can't please everyone. The bottom line is that if you want a status bar, you can get it. Quit whinging and nitpicking.
The whole point of Firefox is that extensions allow you to customize Firefox the way you want. If Firefox puts in an new feature, users scream that it's becoming bloated. If Firefox removes a feature, users scream that they're removing even the option of having the feature. They can't win, can they? I suppose they could try to change nothing, and then of source users would scream that it isn't improving as other browser are. Huh.
I've always found that Chrome uses more memory than Firefox. The last I checked, it liked to swap memory out to disk, so RAM usage is low, but then when I click on a tab I haven't used for a while, I have to wait while the process is swapped back in to RAM. I haven't found that I need to restart Chrome on a regular basis though.
The main reasons I don't use Chrome are lack of Print Preview, and the fact that any file that opens in a helper application is permanently downloaded into my downloads folder. When they fix those problems, I'll give it another try.
No they didn't. Read Where did my status bar go? How to customize Firefox 4s UI.
SVG fonts are the only thing keeping Firefox 4 from getting a 100% score on Acid3. I'm not sure if Firefox 4 passes the performance aspect, although it's probably close. I think also Firefox 4 shows a favicon in the URL bar even when it's returned with a 404 error, and if so, it doesn't fully pass the rendering aspect. In any case, it's so close to passing Acid3 that web developers and users would hardly notice the difference, aside from web developers not being able to use SVG fonts. But since WOFF fonts seem to be superior to SVG fonts and IE9 also doesn't support SVG fonts, I don't think many web developers would use SVG fonts even if Firefox 4 supported them.
Considering that Internet Explorer has been lagging in support for basic features behind Firefox, Safari, and Opera for many years, I don't think there's a double standard. If Microsoft finally catches up with IE9, there's going to be rejoicing, not complaining.
I see, any excuse in a storm. Discussing this with you has been hilarious.
If we keep burning fossil fuels at the present rate, we'll run out within hundreds of years. Excess carbon dioxide lasts about 1000 years in the atmosphere. If the ice age is 2000 years away, the worst thing we could do is burn fossil fuels now. We should wait until it's about to happen. Unless you have a better idea for putting trillions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that doesn't involve burning fossil fuels.
No, of course I do not accept that they have one without question. I've seen them make plenty of predictions. Here's an entire page of papers from the 1970s that make predictions. Taking a glance at the top of the page, there's a prediction of a temperature rise of 1 degree Celsius by 2000 that has come to pass.
I have to ask again. Are you retarded? How can you discuss a topic that you have absolutely no knowledge of?
Whether it has to do with warm water or warm air, the point is the same. The Earth (air, land, and water) is warming, causing ice to melt. It's not that hard to understand, now is it? I understand, it's not about whether you understand. It's about making lame excuses for the purpose of being argumentative. You don't want to understand anything at all.
The change in temperature caused by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will last only about 1000 years. I might agree with your argument, except that we would have to reduce usage of fossil fuels so we have some left when we'll need the carbon dioxide in thousands of years. We still need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by reducing use of fossil fuels. Now if the ice age were only 300 years away, you might be on to something...
You'll have to show me evidence that ice mass is rebounding from a 2007 year low. The latest I've heard is that the area of ice coverage has increased a bit, but the ice is thinning. Overall, there's been less ice mass worldwide every year. Here's data from Greenland, Canada, and the Antarctic.
Then how does science demonstrate causality? According to you, if I predict that if I throw you off a building that you'll plummet to the ground due to gravity, you'll say that it was just an amazing coincidence that you plummeted, and that it had nothing to do with gravity. Surely science gives us a was of testing a hypothesis involving causality. Think about it.
Ah, the moving goalposts. See, the problem there is that in 30 years you'll demand yet more evidence. Besides, the sea levels will not rise 3 feet in the next 30 years, and in any case, even if they did it would already be too late to avert disaster. This head-in-the-sand approach of not accepting there's a disaster until it's too late to prevent is guaranteed to let the disaster happen. It's a good thing world leaders don't take such an approach to dealing with AGW.
Models certainly can predict the short-term climate. We can directly measure the short-term climate.
I'm not sure why not accurately predicting the climate a very long time from now would bother you. Let's say that you're running a business and at the rate it's generating revenue and spending, it will go bankrupt in two years. Now, perhaps you could reduce spending or make a new product that could generate new revenue. The CFO asks you to predict what the profits of the company will be in ten years. You say that you can't predict that far out, because it depends on too many factors. The CFO retorts "we're supposed to accept there this magic time period over which your financial forecasts are accurate?" Does that make sense to you? Does it seem like a good argument against reducing spending or coming out with a new product the public is clamoring for? It sounds to me like the CFO is in denial about the impending bankruptcy that is inevitable unless the company changes its behavior.
It's not my hypothesis. You can look up climate research any time you want. You seem to be of the opinion that I'm trying to convince you of something. I agree I have no credibility. I'm simply stating what the expert climatologists and economists are stating. They're the ones with the credibility. Politicians are in agreement and are working on reducing carbon dioxide emissions. If anyone needs to convince anyone, you will have to work on convincing them. You'll need more than a short, quickly written Slashdot post to convince them.
But we can observe the warming and the ice melting and the sea level rising, exactly as predicted. We're there, baby!
Yes, there are other variables, but the system isn't really as complicated as you make it. From Arrhenius' simple calculations, you get a result that matches closely with the observed warming. I also never said CO2 was the only influence on temperature. Of course it isn't! Are you retarded?
If over the next 15 years we don't see further ice melt and sea level rise, I would say that it could possibly refute the theory of AGW. It certainly isn't my theory, and 15 years is too short a period of time to say for sure. I'd really want to see greatly reduced warming over the next 30 years. But in any case, I've said this for years, and every year we continue to see warmer temperatures, ice melt, and sea level rise. Every year the theory is confirmed, again and again. What would it take for you to admit AGW is a problem?
Of course there's evidence that increased temperature will be detrimental. Rising sea levels will cause hundreds of millions to relocate. You don't know a single thing about global warming, except sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting NO NO NO do you?
But climatologists have been making predictions for years. This began with Arrhenius over 100 years ago. Take a look at the IPCC report, which has several graphs that predict temperature rise and sea level rise over the next several decades.