The joke presupposed something that wasn't true, so it wasn't funny at all. Besides that, AGW deniers look at that sort of stuff and eat it up. It's like jokes about Al Gore inventing this and that, as if he said he invented the Internet. Those jokes aren't funny (because he never said anything like that to begin with) and also reinforce a false belief (effectively libeling the man). Anyway, hear the one about Al Gore bragging that he invented global warming?
One of the easiest ways to cut carbon dioxide emissions is by increasing energy efficiency. This not only cuts carbon dioxide emissions, but also saves money! In the case of switching over to alternatives to energy, we're building coal plants all the time. If we build an alternative energy plant instead of a coal plant, we're effectively cutting carbon dioxide emissions for free, as long as the alternative plant doesn't cost more to build and operate than the coal plant. Yes, you're still being dense. Exceedingly dense. And argumentative. Thus, you're being modded as a troll. Gee, isn't it fun when we solve mysteries?
But the argument for AGW isn't like that at all. The warming was predicted from first principles over 100 years ago. The idea that burning fossil fuels will increase the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and the increase in this greenhouse gas will cause warming is pretty obvious when you know basic chemistry and physics. The fact that we've observed the predicted warming at a rate and during a time that we would expect verifies the hypothesis. Among climatologists, only a select few still won't accept that the hypothesis has been confirmed.
Got any better ideas? I'm sure many people would love to hear them if you've got them. Oh, right, it's easier just to criticize how someone else is dealing with a problem than it is to actually provide a better solution.
Christian Science is also pretty goofy. Many members believe that all illness is curable by belief and prayer. One time my Dad was dating a Christian Scientist, and she initially refused to go to a doctor after she broke her leg in a skiing accident. After a few days of excruciating pain, she finally realized that having the leg set and immobilized was probably the best idea.
But, you're right, reporting from The Christian Science Monitor is usually pretty good. My dad was surprised when he realized this, of course!
You're presupposing that the only way carbon dioxide emissions could fall is by a declining market. There are surely other ways, such as switching to alternative energy sources. So, yes, you're being deliberately dense, so it's no surprise if you're modded down as a troll.
We can't "stabilize emissions at 350 ppm". We can stabilize the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at 350 ppm by reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 85%. We can do this by a combination of obtaining energy from sources other than fossil fuels (nuclear, solar, wind, biofuels, geothermal, etc.) and using the energy more efficiently (CFL and LED lighting, increased insulation, hybrid vehicles, etc.).
Whoa! Now if only there were a way to set up my website so all traffic would be encrypted so FireSheep attacks wouldn't work, that would be even better! Does anyone know how I could do that?
You can optionally use newer API calls and fall back to older ones if they aren't available. Besides, this has nothing to do with my or anyone else's expectations. The bottom line is that Windows XP users, which still make the majority of the desktop and laptop market, will not be able to run IE9. Most IE8 users who want a newer browser will need to switch to Firefox or Chrome. They're not going to buy a new computer or do a OS reinstall just to get a newer browser.
I never said anything about an argument not to upgrade to Windows 7. I said that it's fair to complain about Microsoft not making IE 9 run on Windows XP, because all other browsers and popular programs from other companies do run on Windows XP.
I've never heard of Mesh. Perhaps you could think of popular applications that will not run on Windows XP? Besides, it looks like Mesh is also from Microsoft. Any popular non-Microsoft applications that will not run on Windows XP?
I was thinking along the lines of end-user applications, not APIs supported by the operating system. Sorry if I did not make this clear. I thought the intention of the question would be obvious. Users run applications. Are there other applications that users need to upgrade their version of Windows in order to use the latest version?
Mozilla and Opera get their revenue from their respective browsers. Microsoft makes money from users who need to buy Windows to run IE to access web applications that require IE.
The larger the usage share of the browser you use, the more likely web developers will be to test their sites in the browser you use, and thus the more websites will work properly in the web browser you use.
Slashdot Mirror
And he wonders why he's modded troll. I guess you really are that stupid, huh?
The joke presupposed something that wasn't true, so it wasn't funny at all. Besides that, AGW deniers look at that sort of stuff and eat it up. It's like jokes about Al Gore inventing this and that, as if he said he invented the Internet. Those jokes aren't funny (because he never said anything like that to begin with) and also reinforce a false belief (effectively libeling the man). Anyway, hear the one about Al Gore bragging that he invented global warming?
One of the easiest ways to cut carbon dioxide emissions is by increasing energy efficiency. This not only cuts carbon dioxide emissions, but also saves money! In the case of switching over to alternatives to energy, we're building coal plants all the time. If we build an alternative energy plant instead of a coal plant, we're effectively cutting carbon dioxide emissions for free, as long as the alternative plant doesn't cost more to build and operate than the coal plant. Yes, you're still being dense. Exceedingly dense. And argumentative. Thus, you're being modded as a troll. Gee, isn't it fun when we solve mysteries?
But the argument for AGW isn't like that at all. The warming was predicted from first principles over 100 years ago. The idea that burning fossil fuels will increase the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and the increase in this greenhouse gas will cause warming is pretty obvious when you know basic chemistry and physics. The fact that we've observed the predicted warming at a rate and during a time that we would expect verifies the hypothesis. Among climatologists, only a select few still won't accept that the hypothesis has been confirmed.
Got any better ideas? I'm sure many people would love to hear them if you've got them. Oh, right, it's easier just to criticize how someone else is dealing with a problem than it is to actually provide a better solution.
Christian Science is also pretty goofy. Many members believe that all illness is curable by belief and prayer. One time my Dad was dating a Christian Scientist, and she initially refused to go to a doctor after she broke her leg in a skiing accident. After a few days of excruciating pain, she finally realized that having the leg set and immobilized was probably the best idea.
But, you're right, reporting from The Christian Science Monitor is usually pretty good. My dad was surprised when he realized this, of course!
Their news reporting is usually pretty good. In this case, however, there seem to be major problems with the article.
Whoosh! Why not use an SSL certificate from StartSSL?
You're presupposing that the only way carbon dioxide emissions could fall is by a declining market. There are surely other ways, such as switching to alternative energy sources. So, yes, you're being deliberately dense, so it's no surprise if you're modded down as a troll.
We can't "stabilize emissions at 350 ppm". We can stabilize the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at 350 ppm by reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 85%. We can do this by a combination of obtaining energy from sources other than fossil fuels (nuclear, solar, wind, biofuels, geothermal, etc.) and using the energy more efficiently (CFL and LED lighting, increased insulation, hybrid vehicles, etc.).
Whoa! Now if only there were a way to set up my website so all traffic would be encrypted so FireSheep attacks wouldn't work, that would be even better! Does anyone know how I could do that?
Actually, annual growth would be just over 200%. An increase of 200% is equivalent to tripling, just as an increase of 100% is equivalent to doubling.
Please tell me more about this post was written by a robot.
http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/70028 allows Firefox to use the Flash plugin to play HTML5 H.264 video.
Just use CentOS or Fedora, and pay nothing for the OS. Of course, you'll then have to pay for support if you need it.
Yeah, WiFi is what takes care of that pesky air gap for me! Do you recommend 802.11g or 802.11n for SCADA systems?
Yes, confirmation bias. Congratulations on admitting your error. Honestly! So few people do these days.
If I average the percentages, I get IE 1st, Firefox 2nd, Chrome 3rd, Opera 4th, and Safari 5th. How do you figure Opera is a close second?
You can optionally use newer API calls and fall back to older ones if they aren't available. Besides, this has nothing to do with my or anyone else's expectations. The bottom line is that Windows XP users, which still make the majority of the desktop and laptop market, will not be able to run IE9. Most IE8 users who want a newer browser will need to switch to Firefox or Chrome. They're not going to buy a new computer or do a OS reinstall just to get a newer browser.
I never said anything about an argument not to upgrade to Windows 7. I said that it's fair to complain about Microsoft not making IE 9 run on Windows XP, because all other browsers and popular programs from other companies do run on Windows XP.
I've never heard of Mesh. Perhaps you could think of popular applications that will not run on Windows XP? Besides, it looks like Mesh is also from Microsoft. Any popular non-Microsoft applications that will not run on Windows XP?
I was thinking along the lines of end-user applications, not APIs supported by the operating system. Sorry if I did not make this clear. I thought the intention of the question would be obvious. Users run applications. Are there other applications that users need to upgrade their version of Windows in order to use the latest version?
Mozilla and Opera get their revenue from their respective browsers. Microsoft makes money from users who need to buy Windows to run IE to access web applications that require IE.
Apples to oranges. Can you think of other popular Windows software that will not run on Windows XP, besides the latest version of IE?
The larger the usage share of the browser you use, the more likely web developers will be to test their sites in the browser you use, and thus the more websites will work properly in the web browser you use.