The Firefox devs got away with it by fixing their memory problems. They made Firefox use less memory than other browsers. What was it they were unable or unwilling to fix again?
IceWeasel isn't a fork of Firefox. It's a version of Firefox that's been rebranded so that it doesn't have the trademark and copyright issues that Firefox has.
You do have a good point. There has been talk about supporting additional image formats (JPEG 2000, TIFF, MNG) using imagelib extensions. They could do the same for different video codecs, as well.
I notice that Firefox is an open source project, so all it takes is someone to come forward to do the work. I also notice that the Google Summer of Code will be starting over the next several months. Are there any students out the that want to make some extra $$$, get great software development experience, and add a significant new capability to one of the most popular browsers?
It looks like they did. Firefox 3.1 beta 3 is still not available on the All Betas page, and when you click on the Download Now link on the Release Notes page, you get Firefox 3.1 beta 2.
The release linked to in the summary may not be the final, completed version, as Firefox 3.1 beta 3 has not been officially released yet. Download it at your own risk. You should wait until it's available through the links I give in this post.
Of course, greenhouse gasses do have some warming effect, by definition. The question is whether the warming we've noticed so far is primarily caused by an increase in greenhouse gasses (the AGW hypothesis) or is part of a natural cycle (the NC hypothesis). The AGW hypothesis predicts the temperature will continue to increase. According to the OP, the NC hypothesis predicts the temperature will reverse course and decrease. If that is the case, it is a simple matter to make an observation and confirm one hypothesis and falsify the other. It does not prove conclusively which one is correct, but then again, science never does prove anything conclusively. My question is a simple, straightforward one, and one that requires a simple yes or no answer. If the observed warming continues, will the NC advocates admit they were wrong?
No, I did not assume the climate model would cause warming. How can a model cause warming anyway? I used the hypothesis that excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will cause warming, which is the consensus among climatologists. If the predicted warming is not observed, I will admit that the hypothesis does not seem to be accurate.
My question is simply if the cooling predicted by the OP is not observed, is he willing to admit that his hypothesis might be wrong. It's very simple. Two predictions from the hypotheses. Let's see which prediction is correct.
I'm not assuming anything. One person made a prediction that the Earth will get cooler, based on the natural cycle global warming hypothesis. I asked if that didn't happen, would he admit he was wrong. I predict that the Earth will get warmer, based on the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. If the Earth gets colder, I will freely admit I was wrong.
It's called the scientific method. You know, use hypotheses to make predictions, then see which prediction matches our observations.
I hope you're right. If the climate in the future is cooler, I would admit that global warming does not seem to be caused by greenhouse gasses. I wonder if you will admit you're wrong if the climate does keep warming. If there's less Arctic ice in twenty years than there is today, will you admit it?
I was responding to the original complaint that an Apple developer who had significant in-depth knowledge could not fix a Wikipedia article by removing what he knew was wrong and replacing it with what he knew was right. Although I don't doubt that the developer did know the truth and was honestly correcting a problem in Wikipedia, I carefully explained why you can't simply do that. I guess you can get medieval pedantic on my ass if you like.
What you say is true if there are only a few editors of an article and they handpick their sources. However, the Wikipedia guideline of neutral point of view says you cannot handpick sources to cite. On more popular articles, this guideline seems to work well in practice. If you find a biased article, one that gives undue weight to one particular point of view, you can tag it as being POV and add information from other reliable sources.
Wikipedia guidelines say that reliable sources should be edited and not self-published. That would usually mean most books, magazines, and newspapers are reliable sources. If an expert said something during an interview, I think if it's included in Wikipedia it should be included with attribution. That is, you wouldn't state what the expert said as a fact, but state what the expert said is true according to that specific expert. You also need to attribute any opinions to specific sources, also.
As I said, you can't simply add something to a Wikipedia article just because you know it's right. You also can't remove information that you know is wrong if there's a reliable source cited. I suppose in an ideal world Wikipedia would be better if everyone could simply add their two cents and not have to provide any evidence that what they say is true. I think what would happen in practice, though, is that many articles would quickly devolve into a mishmash of he-said, she-said gossip. You need to have some kind of objective standard what says what you can and can't do. If you think you have a better set of guidelines that would improve Wikipedia, by all means discuss your suggestions in the appropriate places in Wikipedia.
Probably neither. I think it's a case of garbage in, garbage out. Even if your program is provably 100% correct, it will still produce nonsense as output when you feed it nonsense for input.
Global dimming doesn't have as much of an effect as you imply. From 1960 to 1990, there was a 4% reduction in light reaching the Earth's surface due to global dimming. Since 1990, global dimming has been decreasing, so there's an increase in light getting through the atmosphere. The total global dimming now seems to be about 10%.
Haven't you heard? Microsoft has shown that jobs that require low skill pay a low wage, whether it's legal or not. So drug dealers all make near minimum wage.
And, of course, that's why the certificate has been revoked already. Because they don't care. You can read the comments near the bottom of this page for the details.
Seriously, if you think that a certificate authority is not performing due diligence in verifying the identity of the individuals who it's issuing certificate to, make some noise about it, and the problem will be quickly resolved.
In Firefox, I click the site icon when I'm on an https site, click More Information, then click View Certificate to view the certificate. Could it be any less difficult to inspect the certificate?
Slashdot Mirror
Now it's been released. It's available for everyone through the links I gave, and through Check for Updates... for Firefox 3.1 beta 2 users.
The Firefox devs got away with it by fixing their memory problems. They made Firefox use less memory than other browsers. What was it they were unable or unwilling to fix again?
IceWeasel isn't a fork of Firefox. It's a version of Firefox that's been rebranded so that it doesn't have the trademark and copyright issues that Firefox has.
You do have a good point. There has been talk about supporting additional image formats (JPEG 2000, TIFF, MNG) using imagelib extensions. They could do the same for different video codecs, as well.
I notice that Firefox is an open source project, so all it takes is someone to come forward to do the work. I also notice that the Google Summer of Code will be starting over the next several months. Are there any students out the that want to make some extra $$$, get great software development experience, and add a significant new capability to one of the most popular browsers?
It looks like they did. Firefox 3.1 beta 3 is still not available on the All Betas page, and when you click on the Download Now link on the Release Notes page, you get Firefox 3.1 beta 2.
The release linked to in the summary may not be the final, completed version, as Firefox 3.1 beta 3 has not been officially released yet. Download it at your own risk. You should wait until it's available through the links I give in this post.
I'm made of quarks, you insensitive clod!
Of course, greenhouse gasses do have some warming effect, by definition. The question is whether the warming we've noticed so far is primarily caused by an increase in greenhouse gasses (the AGW hypothesis) or is part of a natural cycle (the NC hypothesis). The AGW hypothesis predicts the temperature will continue to increase. According to the OP, the NC hypothesis predicts the temperature will reverse course and decrease. If that is the case, it is a simple matter to make an observation and confirm one hypothesis and falsify the other. It does not prove conclusively which one is correct, but then again, science never does prove anything conclusively. My question is a simple, straightforward one, and one that requires a simple yes or no answer. If the observed warming continues, will the NC advocates admit they were wrong?
No, I did not assume the climate model would cause warming. How can a model cause warming anyway? I used the hypothesis that excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will cause warming, which is the consensus among climatologists. If the predicted warming is not observed, I will admit that the hypothesis does not seem to be accurate.
My question is simply if the cooling predicted by the OP is not observed, is he willing to admit that his hypothesis might be wrong. It's very simple. Two predictions from the hypotheses. Let's see which prediction is correct.
I'm not assuming anything. One person made a prediction that the Earth will get cooler, based on the natural cycle global warming hypothesis. I asked if that didn't happen, would he admit he was wrong. I predict that the Earth will get warmer, based on the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. If the Earth gets colder, I will freely admit I was wrong.
It's called the scientific method. You know, use hypotheses to make predictions, then see which prediction matches our observations.
I hope you're right. If the climate in the future is cooler, I would admit that global warming does not seem to be caused by greenhouse gasses. I wonder if you will admit you're wrong if the climate does keep warming. If there's less Arctic ice in twenty years than there is today, will you admit it?
As George Carlin would say, the planet will be fine. The people are fucked.
Is there anybody out there?
I'm just startin' ta get it. Give it to me, baby! Uh, huh! Uh, huh!
I was responding to the original complaint that an Apple developer who had significant in-depth knowledge could not fix a Wikipedia article by removing what he knew was wrong and replacing it with what he knew was right. Although I don't doubt that the developer did know the truth and was honestly correcting a problem in Wikipedia, I carefully explained why you can't simply do that. I guess you can get medieval pedantic on my ass if you like.
What you say is true if there are only a few editors of an article and they handpick their sources. However, the Wikipedia guideline of neutral point of view says you cannot handpick sources to cite. On more popular articles, this guideline seems to work well in practice. If you find a biased article, one that gives undue weight to one particular point of view, you can tag it as being POV and add information from other reliable sources.
Wikipedia guidelines say that reliable sources should be edited and not self-published. That would usually mean most books, magazines, and newspapers are reliable sources. If an expert said something during an interview, I think if it's included in Wikipedia it should be included with attribution. That is, you wouldn't state what the expert said as a fact, but state what the expert said is true according to that specific expert. You also need to attribute any opinions to specific sources, also.
As I said, you can't simply add something to a Wikipedia article just because you know it's right. You also can't remove information that you know is wrong if there's a reliable source cited. I suppose in an ideal world Wikipedia would be better if everyone could simply add their two cents and not have to provide any evidence that what they say is true. I think what would happen in practice, though, is that many articles would quickly devolve into a mishmash of he-said, she-said gossip. You need to have some kind of objective standard what says what you can and can't do. If you think you have a better set of guidelines that would improve Wikipedia, by all means discuss your suggestions in the appropriate places in Wikipedia.
As far as contributing to Wikipedia is concerned, it doesn't matter whether a piece of information is true or not. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth -- that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. If you want to say something in Wikipedia, you should be prepared to cite a reliable source verifying what you say. It doesn't matter if it's true and you just know it.
I've found one pass of a sledgehammer makes it next to impossible to recover data from a disk. Even read-only media!
Probably neither. I think it's a case of garbage in, garbage out. Even if your program is provably 100% correct, it will still produce nonsense as output when you feed it nonsense for input.
Global dimming doesn't have as much of an effect as you imply. From 1960 to 1990, there was a 4% reduction in light reaching the Earth's surface due to global dimming. Since 1990, global dimming has been decreasing, so there's an increase in light getting through the atmosphere. The total global dimming now seems to be about 10%.
Haven't you heard? Microsoft has shown that jobs that require low skill pay a low wage, whether it's legal or not. So drug dealers all make near minimum wage.
And, of course, that's why the certificate has been revoked already. Because they don't care. You can read the comments near the bottom of this page for the details.
Seriously, if you think that a certificate authority is not performing due diligence in verifying the identity of the individuals who it's issuing certificate to, make some noise about it, and the problem will be quickly resolved.
In Firefox, I click the site icon when I'm on an https site, click More Information, then click View Certificate to view the certificate. Could it be any less difficult to inspect the certificate?
For computer architecture, can anyone beat Hennessy and Patterson? I mean other than Patterson and Hennessy?