James Duncan is correct. Methane has 25 times the warming potential of carbon dioxide over a period of 100 years. The half-life of methane in the atmosphere is not a few weeks, but seven years. Burning methane, even if the energy produced is wasted, reduces the warming potential of the gas.
Opera Software, based in Oslo, said downloads of its browser in Belgium, France, Britain, Poland, and Spain had tripled since the screen began to appear.
So now that makes six Opera users. And they'll all be crowing that this was all due to a complaint raised first by Opera!
This is why Microsoft is able to have a product to verify that Windows drivers don't hang, even though doing so for any program in general is impossible.
0K is considered the absolute zero, but It'll probably be challenged eventually
The temperature absolute zero is a temperature we can never reach.
You can actually prove that some small snippets of code are really and truly bug-free, however. You can prove many algorithms correct, and prove that a block of code correctly implements the algorithm.
Why not take a few seconds to tag the article as needing cleanup, then letting the lazyweb do the work? Remember, it takes all kinds of editors to write good articles. You can focus on the work that's easiest for you.
And then there are those people who don't bother to even read the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, such as assume good faith. Their edits are often reverted.
Because out of thousands of addons, some are written by poor programmers and have horrible memory leaks. If you use one of those few addons with a horrible memory leak, Firefox will use incredibly large amounts of memory within a short while. As long as you don't use one of the buggy addons, you should be fine. You're probably correct that some memory benchmarks should be done with a handful of very popular addons, but those are the ones that don't exhibit the memory problems.
My Fedora 11 system has patches to install nearly every day. At least all the updates come through one mechanism, and usually I don't need to reboot to apply the patches.
It isn't an argument. It's a simple statement of fact. I don't disagree with a word you say. It's just that if that's the main reason the OP doesn't like Bing, then it logically follows that the OP should also not like Google. If he had phrased his reasons to dislike Bing as well as you, they would sound more reasonable and consistent.
According to the definitions of monopoly I've seen, Google does not have a monopoly on search. Perhaps if they ever handle 90+% of Internet searches, then they could be considered a monopoly. However, there are no laws in the US against simply having a monopoly. There are laws against abusing a monopoly.
To me, it sounds like MS is saying "Boo Hoo! We're no longer the only 800 lb. gorilla in the room and can't dictate what everybody does anymore!" I say, "Enjoy what you've been dishing out all these years, Microsoft. Can you now understand why you're despised by so many?"
And, to harp back on AGW (I hope people read what I wrote here and not jump to certain conclusions) - there is nothing more than a hypothesis at this time.
I'm not sure why people keep saying this. We have decades of observations that match the predictions of anthropogenic global warming. Well, actually I guess I understand why people say this.
"It doesn't matter whether you show them negative or positive information, they reject the information that is contrary to what they would like to believe, and they glom onto the positive information," Braman says.
But why do they believe the smear campaign? Could it be that some people's beliefs make them more susceptible to believing that climatology is all lies? I notice that when people say science is religion or science has become politicized, they are talking only about a narrow aspect of science that their beliefs are in conflict with. For example, creationists disagree with evolutionary biology, but seem to have no problem with other areas of science.
So get back to me when you can point to a model that has predicted some of the major things happening, all around the world, fairly consistently, for at least 5 years.
We already have! There is research from decades ago that says ice around the world will be melting. We observe that it is melting, and it's melting even faster than anyone realized it could. It's melting in the Arctic, Alaska, Greenland, and the Antarctic. You know, because the world is warming. The warming caused by an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was predicted over 100 years ago by Arrhenius.
Again, what you're doing is utterly ignoring all the scientific research that shows AGW is happening, and harping on the "problems" you perceive.
You are correct that water vapor is a greenhouse gas. In fact, it provides most of the greenhouse effect for our planet. However, water vapor is not a forcing (in other words, adding water vapor to the atmosphere does not increase the temperature of the planet) because the added water vapor condenses out within days. Carbon dioxide is such a problem because it is a stable chemical compound that can remain in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. Methane is a also very powerful greenhouse gas, but remains in the atmosphere only a few decades because it is highly reactive (in other words, it burns).
It's amazing that considering how much discussion we have about global warming here that we don't cover basic facts such as these much.
I'm sure you can always find "problems" to hyperfocus on. If we delay acting while there are "problems", we'll never act. If AGW is happening, dealing with its effects will cost more trillions and trillions of dollars than avoiding it. If there are actual problems with the hypothesis of AGW, all someone needs to do is write a paper. Taking emailed comments out of context isn't the way to show AGW isn't happening. We need actual scientific evidence. You know, the actual facts.
Surely if you're worried about wasting trillions and trillions of dollars you can write a well researched and well reasoned essay about why we should not reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
"It doesn't matter whether you show them negative or positive information, they reject the information that is contrary to what they would like to believe, and they glom onto the positive information," Braman says.
Does this sound like what you're doing? Ignoring the hundreds of papers on global warming, and focusing on a handful of emails that involve a few climatologists? There are outright frauds in science all the time, and people don't blow those out of all proportion. Why do you do it with AGW? Oh, I get it, it doesn't conform with what you would like to believe. Duh!
We say there is a scientific consensus about anthropogenic global warming because all the scientific papers that reach a conclusion about it reach the same conclusion: AGW is happening. It's not because climatologists "just believe" that AGW is happening due to their personal biases instead of what the facts say. If anyone wants to claim that AGW isn't happening, all they need to do is write up their observations and reasoning in a paper.
The article is much more about whether laypeople (and even scientists from other disciplines) are apt to believe certain scientific conclusions. Whether they do or not has little to do with the evidence.
Scientific misconduct, eh? I've known all along these so-called physicists are making up these elements for fame and fortune. As long as they keep claiming to find elements they'll keep getting grant money and be rolling in dough!
Slashdot Mirror
James Duncan is correct. Methane has 25 times the warming potential of carbon dioxide over a period of 100 years. The half-life of methane in the atmosphere is not a few weeks, but seven years. Burning methane, even if the energy produced is wasted, reduces the warming potential of the gas.
So now that makes six Opera users. And they'll all be crowing that this was all due to a complaint raised first by Opera!
This is why Microsoft is able to have a product to verify that Windows drivers don't hang, even though doing so for any program in general is impossible.
I just love anecdotes. Don't you? They're cool!
The temperature absolute zero is a temperature we can never reach.
You can actually prove that some small snippets of code are really and truly bug-free, however. You can prove many algorithms correct, and prove that a block of code correctly implements the algorithm.
Why not seek dispute resolution in these cases?
Why not take a few seconds to tag the article as needing cleanup, then letting the lazyweb do the work? Remember, it takes all kinds of editors to write good articles. You can focus on the work that's easiest for you.
And then there are those people who don't bother to even read the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, such as assume good faith. Their edits are often reverted.
Because out of thousands of addons, some are written by poor programmers and have horrible memory leaks. If you use one of those few addons with a horrible memory leak, Firefox will use incredibly large amounts of memory within a short while. As long as you don't use one of the buggy addons, you should be fine. You're probably correct that some memory benchmarks should be done with a handful of very popular addons, but those are the ones that don't exhibit the memory problems.
My Fedora 11 system has patches to install nearly every day. At least all the updates come through one mechanism, and usually I don't need to reboot to apply the patches.
Whoa! You were literally born a sysadmin!
Did you even RTF tiger team entry? It's all about using social engineering to get IT admins to install a trapdoor.
It isn't an argument. It's a simple statement of fact. I don't disagree with a word you say. It's just that if that's the main reason the OP doesn't like Bing, then it logically follows that the OP should also not like Google. If he had phrased his reasons to dislike Bing as well as you, they would sound more reasonable and consistent.
According to the definitions of monopoly I've seen, Google does not have a monopoly on search. Perhaps if they ever handle 90+% of Internet searches, then they could be considered a monopoly. However, there are no laws in the US against simply having a monopoly. There are laws against abusing a monopoly.
To me, it sounds like MS is saying "Boo Hoo! We're no longer the only 800 lb. gorilla in the room and can't dictate what everybody does anymore!" I say, "Enjoy what you've been dishing out all these years, Microsoft. Can you now understand why you're despised by so many?"
Google also pays to be the default search engine. That's where Mozilla gets the bulk of their revenue.
I'm not sure why people keep saying this. We have decades of observations that match the predictions of anthropogenic global warming. Well, actually I guess I understand why people say this.
But why do they believe the smear campaign? Could it be that some people's beliefs make them more susceptible to believing that climatology is all lies? I notice that when people say science is religion or science has become politicized, they are talking only about a narrow aspect of science that their beliefs are in conflict with. For example, creationists disagree with evolutionary biology, but seem to have no problem with other areas of science.
We already have! There is research from decades ago that says ice around the world will be melting. We observe that it is melting, and it's melting even faster than anyone realized it could. It's melting in the Arctic, Alaska, Greenland, and the Antarctic. You know, because the world is warming. The warming caused by an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was predicted over 100 years ago by Arrhenius.
Again, what you're doing is utterly ignoring all the scientific research that shows AGW is happening, and harping on the "problems" you perceive.
You are correct that water vapor is a greenhouse gas. In fact, it provides most of the greenhouse effect for our planet. However, water vapor is not a forcing (in other words, adding water vapor to the atmosphere does not increase the temperature of the planet) because the added water vapor condenses out within days. Carbon dioxide is such a problem because it is a stable chemical compound that can remain in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. Methane is a also very powerful greenhouse gas, but remains in the atmosphere only a few decades because it is highly reactive (in other words, it burns).
It's amazing that considering how much discussion we have about global warming here that we don't cover basic facts such as these much.
I'm sure you can always find "problems" to hyperfocus on. If we delay acting while there are "problems", we'll never act. If AGW is happening, dealing with its effects will cost more trillions and trillions of dollars than avoiding it. If there are actual problems with the hypothesis of AGW, all someone needs to do is write a paper. Taking emailed comments out of context isn't the way to show AGW isn't happening. We need actual scientific evidence. You know, the actual facts.
Surely if you're worried about wasting trillions and trillions of dollars you can write a well researched and well reasoned essay about why we should not reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
Does this sound like what you're doing? Ignoring the hundreds of papers on global warming, and focusing on a handful of emails that involve a few climatologists? There are outright frauds in science all the time, and people don't blow those out of all proportion. Why do you do it with AGW? Oh, I get it, it doesn't conform with what you would like to believe. Duh!
We say there is a scientific consensus about anthropogenic global warming because all the scientific papers that reach a conclusion about it reach the same conclusion: AGW is happening. It's not because climatologists "just believe" that AGW is happening due to their personal biases instead of what the facts say. If anyone wants to claim that AGW isn't happening, all they need to do is write up their observations and reasoning in a paper.
The article is much more about whether laypeople (and even scientists from other disciplines) are apt to believe certain scientific conclusions. Whether they do or not has little to do with the evidence.
But if we weren't created by God in his image, what makes us special? Er, I mean, if a computer do everything humans can do, what makes us special?
Scientific misconduct, eh? I've known all along these so-called physicists are making up these elements for fame and fortune. As long as they keep claiming to find elements they'll keep getting grant money and be rolling in dough!