The vast majority of users do not see these problems. If you want a problem fixed, you should explain very specifically what the problem is. How would one see Firefox leaking memory? How would one see the Firefox running the CPU went it shouldn't? The problem isn't being identified because those experiencing it are not identifying what it is.
Opera used to be faster, but not any longer now that Mozilla, Apple, and Google have been improving performance so much. If you look at the links in the previous post, you can see that Opera beat Firefox in only one speed test. Yes, Opera is faster than IE, but that's only because IE is so slow.
If developers stop getting pages to work in IE6, users will stop using IE6 because pages don't work. If developers keep making pages work in IE6, users will keep using it.
If you haven't validated an HTML page, you can fairly safely assume it's not valid HTML. Just like if you type in a program and never run it through a compiler, it probably has a syntax error in it somewhere. It's the exception that a non-trivial program compiles on the first try. Likewise, if you don't validate your HTML, it likely contains syntax errors that cause it not to validate. You should cross your fingers that all browsers, past, current, and future, deal with the syntax error in the way that's favorable to you.
I've seen a lecture by the main developer of SAGE. It seems to be more a tool for doing mathematics research. I've heard of scientists using S-PLUS and R (the open source alternative to S) for their research. In any case, any of these tools is probably better than a spreadsheet for serious scientific research.
If trees are more efficient at removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, then explain how carbon dioxide is currently building up in the atmosphere. Shouldn't the trees be taking care of excess carbon dioxide already?
Don't we have a device that removes CO2 from the air? I thought they were called "trees."
The problem is that it trees do it so slowly that the carbon dioxide builds up in the atmosphere, causing a greenhouse effect. I suppose you're now going to claim that all the atmospheric carbon dioxide readings from the last several decades don't show an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide?
I watched the first part of the video, and I didn't see any evidence that contradicts the AGW hypothesis. The best data I saw was the one data set from one rural station showing temperatures decreasing over the last 50 years. On the other hand, the warming we're experiencing is warming of the global average. The climate models all predict that some areas of the Earth will get colder. In short, the data showing one local decrease in temperature says nothing about the global change in temperature. The rest of the video was about what occurred long ago, and doesn't have anything to do with the hypothesis that most of the warming in the past fifty years is due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere and that global warming will continue due to this excess CO2. I want my ten minutes back!
Yes, exactly, technological advancements are what we need. We need alternative, carbon-neutral energy sources to keep even more people from dying due to the effects of global warming. Technological advancement costs money. Carbon taxes can help to encourage these advances more quickly. I'm glad you agree.
Right. Tell that to the 25,000 people who die of starvation every day. It's okay. We have plenty of resources. We were just too goddamn lazy to actually get them to you to save your lives.
No, no one is saying climate change is going to kill us all. That would be the alarmism you're claiming. It will only kill some of us due to hurricanes, tsunamis, droughts, and famines. Of course, people already die due to those causes. It's just that more will die as the sea level rises, hurricanes get more intense, and droughts cause water and food shortages. You can educate yourself about the effects of global warming by starting with the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming
Sure, there's something we can do about it. For one thing, we can cut carbon dioxide emissions.
I don't understand about your rate comment. What does the rate that ice is melting have to do with how much ice will melt? If you start walking, however slowly, you will eventually walk 1000 miles. The rate does not determine how far you will go. Likewise, if the ice continues to melt, it will all be melted at some point.
I don't understand your comment about CO2-reducing economic disaster schemes. If we keep using fossil fuels at a quicker pace until supply cannot keep up with demand, that will cause an economic disaster because people won't be able to buy gasoline for their cars or warm their homes with natural gas. It would be better to slowly reduce the use of fossil fuels so that supply can keep up with demand. That will also have the beneficial effect of helping to stabilize the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
It may well be normal for the ice on Greenland to melt. The problem is that if it melts, sea level will rise 20 feet. Normal or not, that's going to be devastating to people who live near the ocean. The problem with global warming is not that it's not "normal." The problem is that we're going to have to spend many billions of dollars dealing with the repercussions of global warming.
You cannot expect every year to be the warmest year on record, even though temperatures are increasing over the long term. The stock market also goes up over time, and yet you do not expect the closing every day to be higher than the last, right? Usually when you have an upward trend, the record high will not be in the very most recent data. That's how global temperatures can be increasing if the warmest year on record was 1998. It's just that 1998 was an unusually warm year.
What you're seeing on that graph is that 1998 was an unusually warm year. Also, 2008 was unusually cold. But if you look at the overall trend of the thirty years of the graph, you can see temperatures have been rising. For example, look how often the graph was above 0 before 1998, and compare to how often is was above 0 since 1998. It goes from spending about half the time below 0 to spending most of the time above 0. If you want to see the long-term trend, so a linear regression and you'll see it even more clearly.
If you mean that the oceans and atmosphere have been cooling in the Northern hemisphere in the past few months, yes. It is Fall. If you mean they've been cooling for the part several years, no. Global temperatures are still increasing. It's called "global warming." It's why there have been record low amounts of Arctic ice the past several years.
I agree completely. Having defense in depth is no excuse for incompetence. On the other hand, incompetence does exist, and having defense in depth can save the day when it rears its ugly head. In other words, you confidence in your competence should not be an excuse not to have defense in depth.
No, I never said it's impossible to get a password or login. It's just that with an additional line of security, network access does not automatically mean access to systems and data. In my analogy, a thief can steal a key to the office, but then he would have to also pick the lock on the server room door.
From the article, it seems like the VPN device gave access to the network, but the systems and data on that network are protected by another layer of security. I'm guessing they're referring to passwords. It's like a lock on a server room door in addition to the lock on the door to the offices.
No, it's defense in depth. It's like having locks on your house, and also having an alarm system. That's more secure that having just locks or just an alarm system. On a computer, it's like using a secure browser and also having a firewall and also anti-virus software.
Slashdot Mirror
The vast majority of users do not see these problems. If you want a problem fixed, you should explain very specifically what the problem is. How would one see Firefox leaking memory? How would one see the Firefox running the CPU went it shouldn't? The problem isn't being identified because those experiencing it are not identifying what it is.
Opera used to be faster, but not any longer now that Mozilla, Apple, and Google have been improving performance so much. If you look at the links in the previous post, you can see that Opera beat Firefox in only one speed test. Yes, Opera is faster than IE, but that's only because IE is so slow.
If developers stop getting pages to work in IE6, users will stop using IE6 because pages don't work. If developers keep making pages work in IE6, users will keep using it.
If you haven't validated an HTML page, you can fairly safely assume it's not valid HTML. Just like if you type in a program and never run it through a compiler, it probably has a syntax error in it somewhere. It's the exception that a non-trivial program compiles on the first try. Likewise, if you don't validate your HTML, it likely contains syntax errors that cause it not to validate. You should cross your fingers that all browsers, past, current, and future, deal with the syntax error in the way that's favorable to you.
I don't have eyes, you insensitive clod!
I've seen a lecture by the main developer of SAGE. It seems to be more a tool for doing mathematics research. I've heard of scientists using S-PLUS and R (the open source alternative to S) for their research. In any case, any of these tools is probably better than a spreadsheet for serious scientific research.
If trees are more efficient at removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, then explain how carbon dioxide is currently building up in the atmosphere. Shouldn't the trees be taking care of excess carbon dioxide already?
In one square meter?
The problem is that it trees do it so slowly that the carbon dioxide builds up in the atmosphere, causing a greenhouse effect. I suppose you're now going to claim that all the atmospheric carbon dioxide readings from the last several decades don't show an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide?
I watched the first part of the video, and I didn't see any evidence that contradicts the AGW hypothesis. The best data I saw was the one data set from one rural station showing temperatures decreasing over the last 50 years. On the other hand, the warming we're experiencing is warming of the global average. The climate models all predict that some areas of the Earth will get colder. In short, the data showing one local decrease in temperature says nothing about the global change in temperature. The rest of the video was about what occurred long ago, and doesn't have anything to do with the hypothesis that most of the warming in the past fifty years is due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere and that global warming will continue due to this excess CO2. I want my ten minutes back!
Here it is again: http://norvig.com/oreskes.html
Yes, exactly, technological advancements are what we need. We need alternative, carbon-neutral energy sources to keep even more people from dying due to the effects of global warming. Technological advancement costs money. Carbon taxes can help to encourage these advances more quickly. I'm glad you agree.
I just posted a link to a study showing the consensus. Try actually taking a look at it instead of posting a knee-jerk reaction.
Right. Tell that to the 25,000 people who die of starvation every day. It's okay. We have plenty of resources. We were just too goddamn lazy to actually get them to you to save your lives.
No, no one is saying climate change is going to kill us all. That would be the alarmism you're claiming. It will only kill some of us due to hurricanes, tsunamis, droughts, and famines. Of course, people already die due to those causes. It's just that more will die as the sea level rises, hurricanes get more intense, and droughts cause water and food shortages. You can educate yourself about the effects of global warming by starting with the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming
No, it's just denied most vehemently in the US. First, there is a worldwide consensus among climate scientists that AGW is the cause of most of the warming in the past 50 years. Second, there is an American Denial of Global Warming.
Sure, there's something we can do about it. For one thing, we can cut carbon dioxide emissions.
I don't understand about your rate comment. What does the rate that ice is melting have to do with how much ice will melt? If you start walking, however slowly, you will eventually walk 1000 miles. The rate does not determine how far you will go. Likewise, if the ice continues to melt, it will all be melted at some point.
I don't understand your comment about CO2-reducing economic disaster schemes. If we keep using fossil fuels at a quicker pace until supply cannot keep up with demand, that will cause an economic disaster because people won't be able to buy gasoline for their cars or warm their homes with natural gas. It would be better to slowly reduce the use of fossil fuels so that supply can keep up with demand. That will also have the beneficial effect of helping to stabilize the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
It may well be normal for the ice on Greenland to melt. The problem is that if it melts, sea level will rise 20 feet. Normal or not, that's going to be devastating to people who live near the ocean. The problem with global warming is not that it's not "normal." The problem is that we're going to have to spend many billions of dollars dealing with the repercussions of global warming.
You cannot expect every year to be the warmest year on record, even though temperatures are increasing over the long term. The stock market also goes up over time, and yet you do not expect the closing every day to be higher than the last, right? Usually when you have an upward trend, the record high will not be in the very most recent data. That's how global temperatures can be increasing if the warmest year on record was 1998. It's just that 1998 was an unusually warm year.
What you're seeing on that graph is that 1998 was an unusually warm year. Also, 2008 was unusually cold. But if you look at the overall trend of the thirty years of the graph, you can see temperatures have been rising. For example, look how often the graph was above 0 before 1998, and compare to how often is was above 0 since 1998. It goes from spending about half the time below 0 to spending most of the time above 0. If you want to see the long-term trend, so a linear regression and you'll see it even more clearly.
If you mean that the oceans and atmosphere have been cooling in the Northern hemisphere in the past few months, yes. It is Fall. If you mean they've been cooling for the part several years, no. Global temperatures are still increasing. It's called "global warming." It's why there have been record low amounts of Arctic ice the past several years.
I agree completely. Having defense in depth is no excuse for incompetence. On the other hand, incompetence does exist, and having defense in depth can save the day when it rears its ugly head. In other words, you confidence in your competence should not be an excuse not to have defense in depth.
No, I never said it's impossible to get a password or login. It's just that with an additional line of security, network access does not automatically mean access to systems and data. In my analogy, a thief can steal a key to the office, but then he would have to also pick the lock on the server room door.
From the article, it seems like the VPN device gave access to the network, but the systems and data on that network are protected by another layer of security. I'm guessing they're referring to passwords. It's like a lock on a server room door in addition to the lock on the door to the offices.
No, it's defense in depth. It's like having locks on your house, and also having an alarm system. That's more secure that having just locks or just an alarm system. On a computer, it's like using a secure browser and also having a firewall and also anti-virus software.