I don't think the poll was aimed at browser users. It was aimed at web developers, in particular, Ajax developers who are creating new, interactive websites.
Memory leaks do not cause crashes. Memory leaks cause excessive memory usage. If you can demonstrate how to get Firefox 3 to use excessive amounts of memory or crash, I'd be happy to file a bug report.
I would give Opera more recognition and respect if its users weren't constantly whinging about how little respect it gets. Hype about how it's faster, more secure, more standards compliant, easier to use, and has more features than every other browser doesn't help either. If it were really that great, more users would be using it. I've tried Opera many times in the past, and I go back to Mozilla browsers every time, as do many others who try Opera.
I have tried finding and checking arguments that contradict the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming. The best arguments I've found are the three I've mentioned; they all involve data collected incorrectly. After further analysis, all available data suggests that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing, and the temperature of the land, sea, and lower atmosphere is increasing. These effects were all predicted decades ago by that hypothesis. It seems to me (and nearly all climate scientists) that the evidence supports the hypothesis.
Reading the rest of the paragraph you cite explains the apparent contradiction. A cooling trend was seen in North America, but on further examining the data, the overall global trend was found to be warming. This global warming trend is exactly what had been predicted for decades. The consensus has been that global warming is occurring due to increased carbon dioxide. That there were some scientists concerned about global cooling does not mean there was a consensus.
A similar situation occurred recently when radiosonde and satellite data showed that the atmosphere was not warming. After analyzing the data, it was found that the newer radiosondes had better shielding from the sun, and the satellite data had been misinterpreted. After correcting for those problems, the trend was again observed to be warming.
No, it's not the same at all. You're mixing up cause and effect. If you see an effect, you do not necessarily know the cause. If you know the cause, you know what the effect will be.
Let's you mixed an acid and a base ten times and produced a salt each of the ten times. Then you mixed some chemicals together and produced a salt again. Although the effect is the same, I do not know what caused it. I would want some evidence you actually mixed an acid and a base before I believed you did it an 11th time. Got it now?
Cooling causes another feedback cycle. The cooler the Earth is, the more glaciers grow. Glaciers are white, so they reflect much more of the sunlight back into space, reducing Earth's temperature, causing more glaciers.
Many factors can break the feedback cycle. Volcanic activity can spew carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Variations in the Earth's orbit and solar output can cause the Earth to get more sunlight.
Carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for a long time, and the large heat capacity of the oceans means that it can take centuries after an increase in carbon dioxide levels before a new equilibrium is reached. The maximum temperatures won't be reached until after 2100 even if we reduce carbon emissions immediately.
Do my homework better? Okay, in a minute I came up with a paper entitled The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus. It sounds like the real scientific consensus has been that anthropogenic global warming is a real concern.
Why would you need extra-ordinary proof by the scientific method before you believe that the 11th time is different? Would you assume the cause is the same before you examine any evidence? I would want to see evidence one way or the other before I decided whether the 11th time is the same or is different. That's what seems scientific to me -- the hypothesis that the 11th time is the same needs evidence before we would be inclined to believe it.
In the 1970 and 80s environmentalists were saying we were heading into another ice age.
Callendar proposed the effect of increased carbon dioxide levels causing global warming in the 1930s.
Keeling started monitoring carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere in the 1950s.
If some "environmentalists" were predicting an ice age in the 1970s, it sounds like they were quite ignorant of the scientific research.
What you're saying is that the release of carbon dioxide was not the cause of past global warming. It does not follow that the release of carbon dioxide cannot be the cause of global warming this time. If you show up to work late ten times in a row because of bad traffic, it does not mean that the eleventh time you're late it cannot be because your car didn't start. It looks like you could benefit from learning more about science.
IE7 is worse, because its user interface does not ask the user if they want to add the site as an exception as Firefox 3 does. The end result is you get the big, scary warning in IE7 every time you visit the site, but you get it only once in Firefox 3 because you need to add the exception before it will let you proceed to the site.
Anyway, get a free cert from StartSSL and the problem is solved.
I finally did what you suggested and typed "co" into the address bar. It gives fifteen suggestions, although I'm sure I go to many more than fifteen.com sites. The top suggestions were for COmputer documentation for where I work, COnsumer Reports magazine, COmputer Cable Store, two sites I frequent that are.com domains, and Weather Forecast and COnditions for my city. I fail to see the problem. Care to explain?
Unfortunately, you're doing what so many have taken to, misrepresenting what Mozilla developers say. As far as I can tell, two Mozilla developers responded in that bug report. One asked for specific details about exactly what about the Awesome Bar the user didn't like so preferences could be added to remove those aspects. When a user responded that certain about:config settings had the desired effect, another Mozilla developer agreed that the preferences already existed and concluded that there are no preferences to add. Most of the comments in that bug report (as in most Mozilla Bugzilla bug reports) are not from Mozilla developers. Is there a specific comment from a Mozilla developer that indicates they "don't care"?
But won't fewer be able to take advantage of security vulnerabilities if it becomes harder to decipher changelogs? Security is not an all-or-nothing situation. The fewer people who know about a vulnerability, the fewer that can exploit it, and that means that users have a lower chance of being exploited.
That's actually an important point about security. You cannot make a useful system without any vulnerabilities. You can only maker it harder to exploit the vulnerabilities, meaning that fewer will be able to exploit them. For example, you cannot make an uncrackable and useful code, but you can make a code so hard to break that very few will even try.
And where is what I asked for, the evidence that radiometric dating techniques used in determining the age of fossils are flawed? Radiocarbon dating is irrelevant to evolution, because it doesn't measure the long time periods over which species split. If you have the evidence I'd like to see it. I keep seeing over and over in this thread that scientists are unwilling to debate the facts of the matter, but those same people are unwilling to give specific facts to debate about. You are simply claiming without evidence that radiometric dating is flawed. There's nothing to debate, as it's an empty claim.
I should have said "the acceleration due to gravity at the Earth's surface," where it is about 9.8 m/s^2, not 5.6 m/s^2. It's all good and well to be creative, but basic facts are basic facts. We should simply teach them to children instead of insisting they figure them out themselves. That would simply take too long.
Yes, the analogy fails, because I was simply debunking your claim that introducing randomness cannot add integrity to a complex system. On the other hand, it is because the analogy fails that you fail to prove evolution does not occur. Biological systems can mutate and still reproduce. Most genetic mutations are harmless.
At this point, I'd like to point out that I asked for evidence for ID, but instead you're attempting to providing evidence against evolution. This is the way ID proponents work -- it is not scientific, as it assumes without evidence that ID is the only alternative to evolution. If they were scientific, they would show that ID is able to make more accurate predictions than evolution.
No, the theory of evolution does not "fall to pieces" in the same way that the Big Bang theory does not "fall to pieces" just because we do not know how the universe started. We don't "assume" life was there. We have fossil evidence that life existed four billion years ago. How did that primitive life change from simple, single-celled organisms to the variety of complex life forms we see today? The only reasonable theory we have that explains the evidence is evolution. How life formed we do not know, although there are several credible scientific theories for how it happened.
You are confusing radiometric dating, used for determining the age of fossils millions of years old, with radiocarbon dating, used for determining the age of organic material thousands of years old. Sounds like you need to learn *the* facts before you can interpret them correctly. Anyway, if you have any solid evidence that either radiometric or radiocarbon dating is seriously flawed, let's see it. As far as I know, both dating techniques match other evidence. For example, radiocarbon dating matches what we would expect from historical records, and radiometric dating matches with the age of the solar system.
For starters, I would point out that randomness never adds to the integrity of a complex system, it only breaks it down.
Then for starters, I would say you are obviously incorrect. Genetic algorithms work in exactly the same way, by adding randomness and using selection to improve robustness of algorithms. A related algorithm, simulated annealing, works in a similar way.
As I've said many times, teaching critical thinking is fine. But the obvious purpose of this law is not that. It's about putting pseudoscience into the classroom. That's about simply not thinking or learning basic facts at all.
Just because you cannot prove something does not mean it didn't happen. It's just that the idea is not scientific, because science is about testing hypotheses. Evolution is highly tested. ID is not tested, as it makes very few specific predictions, none of which are confirmed. Evolution cannot be proven; it can only be disproven. Do you have any evidence that evolution did not happen or is not happening?
Slashdot Mirror
The cost will be reduced sharply as demand grows.
I don't think the poll was aimed at browser users. It was aimed at web developers, in particular, Ajax developers who are creating new, interactive websites.
Memory leaks do not cause crashes. Memory leaks cause excessive memory usage. If you can demonstrate how to get Firefox 3 to use excessive amounts of memory or crash, I'd be happy to file a bug report.
I would give Opera more recognition and respect if its users weren't constantly whinging about how little respect it gets. Hype about how it's faster, more secure, more standards compliant, easier to use, and has more features than every other browser doesn't help either. If it were really that great, more users would be using it. I've tried Opera many times in the past, and I go back to Mozilla browsers every time, as do many others who try Opera.
I have tried finding and checking arguments that contradict the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming. The best arguments I've found are the three I've mentioned; they all involve data collected incorrectly. After further analysis, all available data suggests that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing, and the temperature of the land, sea, and lower atmosphere is increasing. These effects were all predicted decades ago by that hypothesis. It seems to me (and nearly all climate scientists) that the evidence supports the hypothesis.
Reading the rest of the paragraph you cite explains the apparent contradiction. A cooling trend was seen in North America, but on further examining the data, the overall global trend was found to be warming. This global warming trend is exactly what had been predicted for decades. The consensus has been that global warming is occurring due to increased carbon dioxide. That there were some scientists concerned about global cooling does not mean there was a consensus.
A similar situation occurred recently when radiosonde and satellite data showed that the atmosphere was not warming. After analyzing the data, it was found that the newer radiosondes had better shielding from the sun, and the satellite data had been misinterpreted. After correcting for those problems, the trend was again observed to be warming.
No, it's not the same at all. You're mixing up cause and effect. If you see an effect, you do not necessarily know the cause. If you know the cause, you know what the effect will be.
Let's you mixed an acid and a base ten times and produced a salt each of the ten times. Then you mixed some chemicals together and produced a salt again. Although the effect is the same, I do not know what caused it. I would want some evidence you actually mixed an acid and a base before I believed you did it an 11th time. Got it now?
Cooling causes another feedback cycle. The cooler the Earth is, the more glaciers grow. Glaciers are white, so they reflect much more of the sunlight back into space, reducing Earth's temperature, causing more glaciers.
Many factors can break the feedback cycle. Volcanic activity can spew carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Variations in the Earth's orbit and solar output can cause the Earth to get more sunlight.
Carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for a long time, and the large heat capacity of the oceans means that it can take centuries after an increase in carbon dioxide levels before a new equilibrium is reached. The maximum temperatures won't be reached until after 2100 even if we reduce carbon emissions immediately.
Do my homework better? Okay, in a minute I came up with a paper entitled The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus. It sounds like the real scientific consensus has been that anthropogenic global warming is a real concern.
Why would you need extra-ordinary proof by the scientific method before you believe that the 11th time is different? Would you assume the cause is the same before you examine any evidence? I would want to see evidence one way or the other before I decided whether the 11th time is the same or is different. That's what seems scientific to me -- the hypothesis that the 11th time is the same needs evidence before we would be inclined to believe it.
Callendar proposed the effect of increased carbon dioxide levels causing global warming in the 1930s. Keeling started monitoring carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere in the 1950s. If some "environmentalists" were predicting an ice age in the 1970s, it sounds like they were quite ignorant of the scientific research.
What you're saying is that the release of carbon dioxide was not the cause of past global warming. It does not follow that the release of carbon dioxide cannot be the cause of global warming this time. If you show up to work late ten times in a row because of bad traffic, it does not mean that the eleventh time you're late it cannot be because your car didn't start. It looks like you could benefit from learning more about science.
IE7 is worse, because its user interface does not ask the user if they want to add the site as an exception as Firefox 3 does. The end result is you get the big, scary warning in IE7 every time you visit the site, but you get it only once in Firefox 3 because you need to add the exception before it will let you proceed to the site.
Anyway, get a free cert from StartSSL and the problem is solved.
I finally did what you suggested and typed "co" into the address bar. It gives fifteen suggestions, although I'm sure I go to many more than fifteen .com sites. The top suggestions were for COmputer documentation for where I work, COnsumer Reports magazine, COmputer Cable Store, two sites I frequent that are .com domains, and Weather Forecast and COnditions for my city. I fail to see the problem. Care to explain?
Unfortunately, you're doing what so many have taken to, misrepresenting what Mozilla developers say. As far as I can tell, two Mozilla developers responded in that bug report. One asked for specific details about exactly what about the Awesome Bar the user didn't like so preferences could be added to remove those aspects. When a user responded that certain about:config settings had the desired effect, another Mozilla developer agreed that the preferences already existed and concluded that there are no preferences to add. Most of the comments in that bug report (as in most Mozilla Bugzilla bug reports) are not from Mozilla developers. Is there a specific comment from a Mozilla developer that indicates they "don't care"?
If the Windows emulator for Linux is Wine, I guess the Mac emulator for Linux would be Mace?
But won't fewer be able to take advantage of security vulnerabilities if it becomes harder to decipher changelogs? Security is not an all-or-nothing situation. The fewer people who know about a vulnerability, the fewer that can exploit it, and that means that users have a lower chance of being exploited.
That's actually an important point about security. You cannot make a useful system without any vulnerabilities. You can only maker it harder to exploit the vulnerabilities, meaning that fewer will be able to exploit them. For example, you cannot make an uncrackable and useful code, but you can make a code so hard to break that very few will even try.
And where is what I asked for, the evidence that radiometric dating techniques used in determining the age of fossils are flawed? Radiocarbon dating is irrelevant to evolution, because it doesn't measure the long time periods over which species split. If you have the evidence I'd like to see it. I keep seeing over and over in this thread that scientists are unwilling to debate the facts of the matter, but those same people are unwilling to give specific facts to debate about. You are simply claiming without evidence that radiometric dating is flawed. There's nothing to debate, as it's an empty claim.
I should have said "the acceleration due to gravity at the Earth's surface," where it is about 9.8 m/s^2, not 5.6 m/s^2. It's all good and well to be creative, but basic facts are basic facts. We should simply teach them to children instead of insisting they figure them out themselves. That would simply take too long.
Yes, the analogy fails, because I was simply debunking your claim that introducing randomness cannot add integrity to a complex system. On the other hand, it is because the analogy fails that you fail to prove evolution does not occur. Biological systems can mutate and still reproduce. Most genetic mutations are harmless.
At this point, I'd like to point out that I asked for evidence for ID, but instead you're attempting to providing evidence against evolution. This is the way ID proponents work -- it is not scientific, as it assumes without evidence that ID is the only alternative to evolution. If they were scientific, they would show that ID is able to make more accurate predictions than evolution.
No, the theory of evolution does not "fall to pieces" in the same way that the Big Bang theory does not "fall to pieces" just because we do not know how the universe started. We don't "assume" life was there. We have fossil evidence that life existed four billion years ago. How did that primitive life change from simple, single-celled organisms to the variety of complex life forms we see today? The only reasonable theory we have that explains the evidence is evolution. How life formed we do not know, although there are several credible scientific theories for how it happened.
You are confusing radiometric dating, used for determining the age of fossils millions of years old, with radiocarbon dating, used for determining the age of organic material thousands of years old. Sounds like you need to learn *the* facts before you can interpret them correctly. Anyway, if you have any solid evidence that either radiometric or radiocarbon dating is seriously flawed, let's see it. As far as I know, both dating techniques match other evidence. For example, radiocarbon dating matches what we would expect from historical records, and radiometric dating matches with the age of the solar system.
Then for starters, I would say you are obviously incorrect. Genetic algorithms work in exactly the same way, by adding randomness and using selection to improve robustness of algorithms. A related algorithm, simulated annealing, works in a similar way.
As I've said many times, teaching critical thinking is fine. But the obvious purpose of this law is not that. It's about putting pseudoscience into the classroom. That's about simply not thinking or learning basic facts at all.
Just because you cannot prove something does not mean it didn't happen. It's just that the idea is not scientific, because science is about testing hypotheses. Evolution is highly tested. ID is not tested, as it makes very few specific predictions, none of which are confirmed. Evolution cannot be proven; it can only be disproven. Do you have any evidence that evolution did not happen or is not happening?