I absolutely never said that CO2 will make the planet unlivable. I'm simply pointing out how stupid the argument is that the Earth has been through X before means that X is nothing to fear. The evidence that a higher amount of CO2 will be a bad thing is that it will cause higher temperatures, causing a rise in sea level, causing hundreds of millions of humans to be displaced at a cost of trillions of dollars. If there's any inaccuracy in that prediction, I would say that's all the more reason to start reducing carbon dioxide levels immediately, because we have no way of knowing how much we need to reduce carbon dioxide levels to avoid certain levels of catastrophe. By catastrophe I do not mean the end of mankind. Don't be melodramatic.
It's not an analogy. I'm showing how stupid that argument is if you apply it to anything other than global warming. Obviously the argument is completely flawed, so why would someone be so desperate to use it as a excuse for not believing that global warming could be a problem? Because they have an emotional desire to deny the problem. It's only human.
Reducing carbon dioxide emissions does not mean reducing your standard of living. It means building power plants that run on energy sources other than fossil fuels (e.g. nuclear, solar, wind, biofuels), and improving energy efficiency such as using compact fluorescent bulbs and cars that get more miles per gallon.
I think this is why most people won't accept that it would be wise to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. They're under the impression it would cause them to suffer, and they don't want to suffer, and therefore they will not admit increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a problem.
It may be possible that rising levels of CO2 may have a negligible impact on temperature due to the negative feedback of cloud formation. Current evidence suggests otherwise, specifically that doubling the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will raise the average temperature by 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius. We have already seen the temperature rise by about 1 degree Celsius, even though CO2 has not doubled yet. The predictions of warming have not only not been falsified; they have been confirmed. Given that that is the case, wouldn't it be wise to start reducing CO2 emissions?
Earth has been hit by large asteroids in the past. Therefore, if there is a large asteroid coming Earth's way, there is nothing to be alarmed about. The simple fact is that our models are not reliable enough for accurate asteroid trajectories. Good thinking! You're right, you're not in denial at all, obviously!
Because the poster who responded to me was making it sound like desktop usage took off after the ads were removed from Opera.
Actually, since Opera removed the ads, their desktop user base has doubled every two years.
I call bullshit! Opera mobile has taken off, and that's simply because the number of mobile users has taken off, and has nothing to do with users preferring Opera suddenly. More Opera mobile users certainly doesn't have anything to do with Opera removing ads from the desktop version.
Get it now? Opera disgusts me because its users continually make exaggerated and fabricated claims such as these, and I'm sure they drive off other potential users as well. It makes Opera look like a laughingstock when they've actually been doing well.
Yes, Opera is profitable and will continue to be profitable. Thank you for being more modest and honest with your claims. Opera's accomplishments are nothing to be embarrassed about, and therefore they need no embellishment or exaggeration. This is exactly the point I've been trying to make. Opera's good -- Opera users hyping Opera make it look like Opera has something to hide, which is far from the case.
In any case, I stand by my assertion that extensions will not cause a sudden dramatic rise in Opera use. I also claim that in a few years Opera fans will say that Opera use took off after they supported extensions, when in fact increase in Opera use will approximately match the increase in mobile browser use, just as it did before extensions. They will probably also try to claim that Opera was the first browser to support extensions.
It sounds plausible that the Opera *mobile* user base has doubled every three years, along with the doubling of mobile users every three years. Note, however, that the usage share of Opera mobile has dropped over the past year, from about 27% a year ago to about 25% today according to StatCounter. They may be gaining *users* as more users go mobile, but they're losing *share* of the mobile market as more users tend to go with BlackBerry and Android.
The Opera *desktop* user base has grown at approximately the rate of new Internet users, so their usage share has been around 2% for years. This story and the post I was replying to is about *desktop* Opera. Let's stop misrepresenting the numbers to try to make Opera look good. That makes it look like the actual numbers are something to be embarrassed about. Opera removing the ads in the desktop version did not result in a sudden surge of desktop Opera popularity, and extensions won't matter either.
The main thing I don't like about Opera is the hyperbole. It also hurts Opera because when people try Opera and see that the hype was just hype, they're disappointed. Try some humility if you want Opera use to actually double every two years.
No, not the only thing ever. Opera was held back before by the ads displayed in the free version. Remember when they removed the ads and Opera usage skyrocketed?
I think most people do not bother to read that, and in any case, they have been working on it. It's a nice thought, but I don't think it's going to do much good. It sends the message that politicians are not working to solve the problem. People who don't read what the purpose of 350 is think individual action will reduce carbon dioxide emissions enough to make a significant difference.
It's a nice thought and all, but I think it sends the wrong message. We can't reduce carbon dioxide emissions much by working individually. We need to build new power generation facilities that emit less carbon dioxide. We need engineers and scientists working on technologies that reduce carbon dioxide emissions from cars. We need new building codes that call for more insulation and more efficient systems to reduce power usage. Worse, people who argue against reducing carbon dioxide emissions point to efforts like these and claim that "they're asking us to change our lifestyle."
I've heard that the benefit may be that people who do want to reduce carbon dioxide emissions feel powerless against the problem if they think there's nothing they can do to help. It's more of a psychological thing.
Funny and true story. I recently exported my Lightning calendar to a CSV file, reinstalled my OS and applications, and imported my calendar back into Lightning. My schedule didn't show up at first, and then when it did, the days of the week were shifted by two days (Oct. 10 was a Friday, for example). I finally realized that it had exported Oct. 10, 2010 as 10/10/10, and when it imported it changed to the date Oct. 10, year 10.
See my posts explaining that making activities illegal can create an unregulated black market. If they could come here legally, would they be breaking other laws?
We do need laws to protect citizen's property and well being. If someone steals your television, stalks you, mugs you, or blows up your business, that hurts you. How does someone buying a joint and smoking it in their house hurt you? How does someone paying money for a woman to have sex with them hurt you?
Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. But you should have the right to swing your fist if you're not hurting anyone else. Punch yourself in the face for all I care!
You are aware that we do have child labor laws that regulate how much children can work, aren't you? For example, movies that feature babies usually shoot with twins because each baby can legally work only a very short number of hours. Children also legally have other jobs such as babysitting. Are you advocating outlawing all child labor so that the only option would be to have a black market of child labor? That's what would cause sweatshops.
Making goods or services illegal generally doesn't make it stop happening. It creates a black market that is unregulated and spurs of whole economy of crime. That is what happened with prohibition. That is what happened when abortions were illegal. That's what is happening now that marijuana is illegal. It's also happening with prostitution. Legalize it and regulate it, and you've actually cut crime.
Yes, that's what truthiness is. What people do is make up fake reasons to believe in what they want to be true, and these fake reasons are called misinformation.
If you're distributing free copies of software, you're depriving the author of the revenue he would have received if he had been able to sell those copies. This is why we have copyright laws: so that people who generate content can be fairly compensated for their efforts.
Slashdot Mirror
I absolutely never said that CO2 will make the planet unlivable. I'm simply pointing out how stupid the argument is that the Earth has been through X before means that X is nothing to fear. The evidence that a higher amount of CO2 will be a bad thing is that it will cause higher temperatures, causing a rise in sea level, causing hundreds of millions of humans to be displaced at a cost of trillions of dollars. If there's any inaccuracy in that prediction, I would say that's all the more reason to start reducing carbon dioxide levels immediately, because we have no way of knowing how much we need to reduce carbon dioxide levels to avoid certain levels of catastrophe. By catastrophe I do not mean the end of mankind. Don't be melodramatic.
It's not an analogy. I'm showing how stupid that argument is if you apply it to anything other than global warming. Obviously the argument is completely flawed, so why would someone be so desperate to use it as a excuse for not believing that global warming could be a problem? Because they have an emotional desire to deny the problem. It's only human.
Rising sea level will displace hundreds of millions of humans at a cost of trillions of dollars. I think that would be a bad thing for humans.
Reducing carbon dioxide emissions does not mean reducing your standard of living. It means building power plants that run on energy sources other than fossil fuels (e.g. nuclear, solar, wind, biofuels), and improving energy efficiency such as using compact fluorescent bulbs and cars that get more miles per gallon.
I think this is why most people won't accept that it would be wise to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. They're under the impression it would cause them to suffer, and they don't want to suffer, and therefore they will not admit increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a problem.
It may be possible that rising levels of CO2 may have a negligible impact on temperature due to the negative feedback of cloud formation. Current evidence suggests otherwise, specifically that doubling the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will raise the average temperature by 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius. We have already seen the temperature rise by about 1 degree Celsius, even though CO2 has not doubled yet. The predictions of warming have not only not been falsified; they have been confirmed. Given that that is the case, wouldn't it be wise to start reducing CO2 emissions?
Earth has been hit by large asteroids in the past. Therefore, if there is a large asteroid coming Earth's way, there is nothing to be alarmed about. The simple fact is that our models are not reliable enough for accurate asteroid trajectories. Good thinking! You're right, you're not in denial at all, obviously!
Because the poster who responded to me was making it sound like desktop usage took off after the ads were removed from Opera.
I call bullshit! Opera mobile has taken off, and that's simply because the number of mobile users has taken off, and has nothing to do with users preferring Opera suddenly. More Opera mobile users certainly doesn't have anything to do with Opera removing ads from the desktop version.
Get it now? Opera disgusts me because its users continually make exaggerated and fabricated claims such as these, and I'm sure they drive off other potential users as well. It makes Opera look like a laughingstock when they've actually been doing well.
Yes, Opera is profitable and will continue to be profitable. Thank you for being more modest and honest with your claims. Opera's accomplishments are nothing to be embarrassed about, and therefore they need no embellishment or exaggeration. This is exactly the point I've been trying to make. Opera's good -- Opera users hyping Opera make it look like Opera has something to hide, which is far from the case.
In any case, I stand by my assertion that extensions will not cause a sudden dramatic rise in Opera use. I also claim that in a few years Opera fans will say that Opera use took off after they supported extensions, when in fact increase in Opera use will approximately match the increase in mobile browser use, just as it did before extensions. They will probably also try to claim that Opera was the first browser to support extensions.
It sounds plausible that the Opera *mobile* user base has doubled every three years, along with the doubling of mobile users every three years. Note, however, that the usage share of Opera mobile has dropped over the past year, from about 27% a year ago to about 25% today according to StatCounter. They may be gaining *users* as more users go mobile, but they're losing *share* of the mobile market as more users tend to go with BlackBerry and Android.
The Opera *desktop* user base has grown at approximately the rate of new Internet users, so their usage share has been around 2% for years. This story and the post I was replying to is about *desktop* Opera. Let's stop misrepresenting the numbers to try to make Opera look good. That makes it look like the actual numbers are something to be embarrassed about. Opera removing the ads in the desktop version did not result in a sudden surge of desktop Opera popularity, and extensions won't matter either.
If that were true Opera would have about 7% usage share because there are about two billion Internet users. Opera in fact has 2-3% usage share.
The main thing I don't like about Opera is the hyperbole. It also hurts Opera because when people try Opera and see that the hype was just hype, they're disappointed. Try some humility if you want Opera use to actually double every two years.
No, not the only thing ever. Opera was held back before by the ads displayed in the free version. Remember when they removed the ads and Opera usage skyrocketed?
Oh, wait. I see your point.
I think most people do not bother to read that, and in any case, they have been working on it. It's a nice thought, but I don't think it's going to do much good. It sends the message that politicians are not working to solve the problem. People who don't read what the purpose of 350 is think individual action will reduce carbon dioxide emissions enough to make a significant difference.
It's a nice thought and all, but I think it sends the wrong message. We can't reduce carbon dioxide emissions much by working individually. We need to build new power generation facilities that emit less carbon dioxide. We need engineers and scientists working on technologies that reduce carbon dioxide emissions from cars. We need new building codes that call for more insulation and more efficient systems to reduce power usage. Worse, people who argue against reducing carbon dioxide emissions point to efforts like these and claim that "they're asking us to change our lifestyle."
I've heard that the benefit may be that people who do want to reduce carbon dioxide emissions feel powerless against the problem if they think there's nothing they can do to help. It's more of a psychological thing.
Funny and true story. I recently exported my Lightning calendar to a CSV file, reinstalled my OS and applications, and imported my calendar back into Lightning. My schedule didn't show up at first, and then when it did, the days of the week were shifted by two days (Oct. 10 was a Friday, for example). I finally realized that it had exported Oct. 10, 2010 as 10/10/10, and when it imported it changed to the date Oct. 10, year 10.
See my posts explaining that making activities illegal can create an unregulated black market. If they could come here legally, would they be breaking other laws?
We do need laws to protect citizen's property and well being. If someone steals your television, stalks you, mugs you, or blows up your business, that hurts you. How does someone buying a joint and smoking it in their house hurt you? How does someone paying money for a woman to have sex with them hurt you?
Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. But you should have the right to swing your fist if you're not hurting anyone else. Punch yourself in the face for all I care!
You are aware that we do have child labor laws that regulate how much children can work, aren't you? For example, movies that feature babies usually shoot with twins because each baby can legally work only a very short number of hours. Children also legally have other jobs such as babysitting. Are you advocating outlawing all child labor so that the only option would be to have a black market of child labor? That's what would cause sweatshops.
Making goods or services illegal generally doesn't make it stop happening. It creates a black market that is unregulated and spurs of whole economy of crime. That is what happened with prohibition. That is what happened when abortions were illegal. That's what is happening now that marijuana is illegal. It's also happening with prostitution. Legalize it and regulate it, and you've actually cut crime.
Yes, that's what truthiness is. What people do is make up fake reasons to believe in what they want to be true, and these fake reasons are called misinformation.
If you're distributing free copies of software, you're depriving the author of the revenue he would have received if he had been able to sell those copies. This is why we have copyright laws: so that people who generate content can be fairly compensated for their efforts.
I suppose if there were lots of bad edits, and good edits were reverted more often than bad edits, that could be true. Care to find a page like that?
I didn't make such a claim.
Whoosh!
Can you show us a page where any changes, even spelling fixes or simple corrections, are reverted?
Care to show us even one article where 99% of good edits are reverted? Remember, that will mean that over 99% of all edits are reverted.