Yes, ice melts in the summer and freezes in the winter. But due to global warming, the amount of ice in the Arctic has been decreasing dramatically over the past few decades. In several years, the Arctic could be ice-free each September.
The effects of global warming are predicted to be most noticeable in the Arctic. This is because any warming will melt ice and snow. The reduced ice and snow cover reflects less sunlight back into space, meaning that more heat is trapped to melt yet more snow and ice, and so on. One of the first major predicted effects of global warming, besides the global mean temperature increasing, is that the Arctic ice will melt. Of course, these are exactly what we observe.
That the tropics are colder in these past few years is normal climate variation. You wouldn't notice the influence of global warming over a few years, as it would be a change of less than 0.1 degrees Celsius.
The greenhouse effect is mostly good. It prevents our planet from being too cold to support the variety of life it does. But there can be too much of a good thing. If we raise double or triple the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we can raise the temperature of the atmosphere and sea by several degrees Celsius. That can lead to higher sea levels, increased tropical storm intensity, and droughts. On the plus side, we won't be expecting any ice ages anytime soon.
Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome
on
Google Chrome, Day 2
·
· Score: 1
I suppose if by cruft you mean any redundancy whatsoever, there is cruft in all user agent strings. Can someone propose user agent strings with minimal redundancy without removing any useful information for IE, Safari, Firefox, Opera, and Chrome?
Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome
on
Google Chrome, Day 2
·
· Score: 1
Firefox is a Mozilla browser, so it isn't cruft in this case. IE and Safari identify themselves as Mozilla, so in their case it is cruft.
The OS can be used to provide a download specific to your OS.
As for language, perhaps you have a point, but again, it can be used to provide a download specific to your choice of language.
I agree that you shouldn't sniff versions to do browser detection. However, you can use it to see which versions of browsers visitors to your site are using, so you can determine which browser versions you should test your site with.
Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome
on
Google Chrome, Day 2
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Mozilla doesn't have any cruft in its user agent string. The user agent string for my Firefox is Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.0.1) Gecko/2008070208 Firefox/3.0.1 It truly is a Mozilla browser running on Windows using the Gecko layout engine.
I think Opera also doesn't have any cruft by default. However, it's easy to add the cruft by selecting Identify As... or Mask As... It's possible to add the cruft in Mozilla browsers, but you need to manually configure the cruft in about:config or install an extension.
I think it's up to Microsoft and Apple to take the steps to remove their cruft. I'm not sure if lesser used browsers will ever be able to remove their cruft completely, as they are often blocked or not properly recognized without it.
NetApplications shows 1% share
on
Google Chrome, Day 2
·
· Score: 4, Informative
If you claim there's a clear bias in the reports I have pointed to, then please point to the "unbiased" reports on the causes of global warming. I'm genuinely interested in them to see if they show any plausible evidence that shows global warming is not man-made.
You are correct that there is enormous disagreement about this issue among scientists, but it's not about whether global warming is caused by human activity. The debate is about exactly what sorts of climate changes we can expect, what a safe level of carbon dioxide is, what the impact of aerosols in the atmosphere is, and do forth. The debate about whether global warming is happening and whether it is man-made is over.
No one said you were denying global warming. Who said I couldn't possibly be wrong? I didn't.
But who says "B"? I have seen some of their evidence, and none of it seems to hold up. From what I've seen, the "A" people have all the evidence in their favor and the "B" people have none. Therefore, I am led to conclude that "A" is correct. I may be wrong, but I would want lots of "B" evidence before I would believe it.
Why don't you simply point to the data being ignored because it doesn't fit into the global warming theory? Why not let us all look at it for ourselves and make our own conclusions? So far, I haven't seen any evidence that would cause me to seriously doubt global warming is man-made. Why would there be so many people denying global warming, and yet there doesn't seem to be any evidence to back up their claims?
Wrong again. According to Al Gore "The vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is real, it's already happening and that it is the result of our activities and not a natural occurrence." He doesn't say no scientists disagree.
Okay, if you think those agencies are biased, how about the chief scientist for BP, one of the major oil companies. (Fast forward to 13:00 in the video to get to the part on global warming). Even he agrees that we need to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 50% to avoid potentially very undesirable consequences. He would surely be biased the other way, and yet he still agrees that anthropogenic global warming is occurring, and that we need to take action soon.
I imagine if a scientist could show clear evidence that global warming is not due to human activities, not only would they still work in climatology, but they would win a Nobel prize. Science is all about skepticism.
It's not just the IPCC saying that global warming is likely due to human activities. That conclusion is also endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences, The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union and its parent organization, the American Institute of Physics, the national science academies of the G8 nations, Brazil, China, and India. and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Very few scientists seem to disagree.
Just get the root certificate that the self-signed certificates were signed with, and add that certificate to Firefox as a trusted certificate. Then you will get no more warnings when connecting to Netgear routers. If Netgear does not provide that certificate, that's Netgear's problem.
If the site uses a self-signed cert and hasn't changed since your last visit, you get no warning in Firefox 3.
If you visit a site for the first time and you get a self-signed certificate, that could be the only warning that you're the victim of a man-in-the-middle attack or DNS poisoning attack. You need a warning in that case. Please read the article I link to; it explains this point clearly.
The point of a certificate is not to guarantee that the owner won't do something malicious. The point is to guarantee that the only person who can decrypt the communications is the site you think you're talking to. It's a guarantee that someone else will not listen in on the conversation.
For a free certificate that works in Firefox, you can use StartSSL. For a cheap certificate that works in all browsers, you can use RapidSSL.
Why doesn't Linksys provide the certificate used to sign the certificates on all those routers? Then you could add that certificate to your root certificates and no longer get any warnings at all. It looks to me like Linksys dropped the ball on this one. Perhaps the changes to Firefox 3 and Internet Explorer 7 will help companies get more serious about ensuring security.
It's supposed to be creepy, because it may be the only warning you're the victim of a DNS poisoning and you're not at the site you think you are, or you're the victim of a man-in-the-middle attack and your "encrypted" communications are being intercepted and read. At least in Firefox 3 you need to add an exception to see the site, so you see the warning only once. In Internet Explorer 7, you can see the site by clicking a link, but you will see the scary warning every time you visit the site. Users will disregard the warning if they see it very often, making the warning ineffective.
Slashdot Mirror
They not only removed my instructions, but they also removed the word "want". Don't those censors know the proper way is to
They don't anyone to know this, but the way around it is to
It's easy to nitpick that the most extreme predictions did not come to pass. If, on the other hand, you look at what most scientists have been saying, the melting is occurring faster than they predicted.
Yes, ice melts in the summer and freezes in the winter. But due to global warming, the amount of ice in the Arctic has been decreasing dramatically over the past few decades. In several years, the Arctic could be ice-free each September.
The effects of global warming are predicted to be most noticeable in the Arctic. This is because any warming will melt ice and snow. The reduced ice and snow cover reflects less sunlight back into space, meaning that more heat is trapped to melt yet more snow and ice, and so on. One of the first major predicted effects of global warming, besides the global mean temperature increasing, is that the Arctic ice will melt. Of course, these are exactly what we observe.
That the tropics are colder in these past few years is normal climate variation. You wouldn't notice the influence of global warming over a few years, as it would be a change of less than 0.1 degrees Celsius.
No, water vapor does not have the 25 times the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide. Water vapor does contribute more to the total greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide.
The greenhouse effect is mostly good. It prevents our planet from being too cold to support the variety of life it does. But there can be too much of a good thing. If we raise double or triple the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we can raise the temperature of the atmosphere and sea by several degrees Celsius. That can lead to higher sea levels, increased tropical storm intensity, and droughts. On the plus side, we won't be expecting any ice ages anytime soon.
I suppose if by cruft you mean any redundancy whatsoever, there is cruft in all user agent strings. Can someone propose user agent strings with minimal redundancy without removing any useful information for IE, Safari, Firefox, Opera, and Chrome?
Mozilla doesn't have any cruft in its user agent string. The user agent string for my Firefox is
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.0.1) Gecko/2008070208 Firefox/3.0.1
It truly is a Mozilla browser running on Windows using the Gecko layout engine.
I think Opera also doesn't have any cruft by default. However, it's easy to add the cruft by selecting Identify As... or Mask As... It's possible to add the cruft in Mozilla browsers, but you need to manually configure the cruft in about:config or install an extension.
I think it's up to Microsoft and Apple to take the steps to remove their cruft. I'm not sure if lesser used browsers will ever be able to remove their cruft completely, as they are often blocked or not properly recognized without it.
According to NetApplications, Chrome has around 1% usage share. That's pretty good for a browser still only in beta.
If you claim there's a clear bias in the reports I have pointed to, then please point to the "unbiased" reports on the causes of global warming. I'm genuinely interested in them to see if they show any plausible evidence that shows global warming is not man-made.
You are correct that there is enormous disagreement about this issue among scientists, but it's not about whether global warming is caused by human activity. The debate is about exactly what sorts of climate changes we can expect, what a safe level of carbon dioxide is, what the impact of aerosols in the atmosphere is, and do forth. The debate about whether global warming is happening and whether it is man-made is over.
No one said you were denying global warming. Who said I couldn't possibly be wrong? I didn't.
But who says "B"? I have seen some of their evidence, and none of it seems to hold up. From what I've seen, the "A" people have all the evidence in their favor and the "B" people have none. Therefore, I am led to conclude that "A" is correct. I may be wrong, but I would want lots of "B" evidence before I would believe it.
Why don't you simply point to the data being ignored because it doesn't fit into the global warming theory? Why not let us all look at it for ourselves and make our own conclusions? So far, I haven't seen any evidence that would cause me to seriously doubt global warming is man-made. Why would there be so many people denying global warming, and yet there doesn't seem to be any evidence to back up their claims?
Wrong again. According to Al Gore "The vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is real, it's already happening and that it is the result of our activities and not a natural occurrence." He doesn't say no scientists disagree.
Okay, if you think those agencies are biased, how about the chief scientist for BP, one of the major oil companies. (Fast forward to 13:00 in the video to get to the part on global warming). Even he agrees that we need to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 50% to avoid potentially very undesirable consequences. He would surely be biased the other way, and yet he still agrees that anthropogenic global warming is occurring, and that we need to take action soon.
I imagine if a scientist could show clear evidence that global warming is not due to human activities, not only would they still work in climatology, but they would win a Nobel prize. Science is all about skepticism.
It's not just the IPCC saying that global warming is likely due to human activities. That conclusion is also endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences, The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union and its parent organization, the American Institute of Physics, the national science academies of the G8 nations, Brazil, China, and India. and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Very few scientists seem to disagree.
Welcome to the world of sensationalist media.
Just get the root certificate that the self-signed certificates were signed with, and add that certificate to Firefox as a trusted certificate. Then you will get no more warnings when connecting to Netgear routers. If Netgear does not provide that certificate, that's Netgear's problem.
If the site uses a self-signed cert and hasn't changed since your last visit, you get no warning in Firefox 3.
If you visit a site for the first time and you get a self-signed certificate, that could be the only warning that you're the victim of a man-in-the-middle attack or DNS poisoning attack. You need a warning in that case. Please read the article I link to; it explains this point clearly.
The point of a certificate is not to guarantee that the owner won't do something malicious. The point is to guarantee that the only person who can decrypt the communications is the site you think you're talking to. It's a guarantee that someone else will not listen in on the conversation.
For a free certificate that works in Firefox, you can use StartSSL. For a cheap certificate that works in all browsers, you can use RapidSSL.
They have. It's called MitM Me, for users who want to become victims of man-in-the-middle attacks. It's probably not a good idea to use it.
Why doesn't Linksys provide the certificate used to sign the certificates on all those routers? Then you could add that certificate to your root certificates and no longer get any warnings at all. It looks to me like Linksys dropped the ball on this one. Perhaps the changes to Firefox 3 and Internet Explorer 7 will help companies get more serious about ensuring security.
It's supposed to be creepy, because it may be the only warning you're the victim of a DNS poisoning and you're not at the site you think you are, or you're the victim of a man-in-the-middle attack and your "encrypted" communications are being intercepted and read. At least in Firefox 3 you need to add an exception to see the site, so you see the warning only once. In Internet Explorer 7, you can see the site by clicking a link, but you will see the scary warning every time you visit the site. Users will disregard the warning if they see it very often, making the warning ineffective.