Apple would like to see Java die and is doing it's best to kill it
All of their major online properties run on Java. iTMS, Apple store, Mobile Me... Seems like odd behavior if the company wants to 'see Java die.' Besides, how else are they going to sell 11 million songs a day? Rails? PHP?.Net?
Some markets? Their worldwide browser share has plummeted to around 54%. http://gs.statcounter.com/ I assume strongholds like Korea are IE for character set reasons, but they'll be less than 50% worldwide in just a few more months. The web stagnated for 10 years because of MS. Now that they're losing their grip, they're back to play embrace, extend, extinguish once again. This time they're not going to be able to crush some little one product company like Netscape though. They're up against Google and Apple. I hope those two stomp a mudhole in MS once and for all.
Agreed. Netscape Communicator died for a reason. It was a slow, bloated, 'all-in-one' package of crap. I'd prefer to see them working on more important things, like SVG animation. They're way behind webkit and presto on that one. HTML5 != address books. Firefox team needs to maintain focus on their core product... their rendering engine.
As for the guy at hand being contracted to produce code, sorry, but if they come to him saying "Write X for us", then they own it because they paid for all of the development.
You're overlooking one important aspect... When contracter writes X for you, he's using libraries he produced long before meeting you. In fact, producing X for you is mainly a matter of gluing together pre-existing, reusable code libraries A, B, and C. Libraries A, B, and C are the culmination of years worth of work. The only thing new in X is the glue code that goes between those libraries. Do you think you should now own libraries that took years to produce because you paid for two months worth of contract work?
If you write X own your own and then decide to sell copies of it, then you own it. However if someone else comes and pays for you to write X, they own it because they paid all the costs of producing it.
That is the point OP is trying to make here. You did not pay "all the costs" of the finished product. You paid for a thin layer of glue code. US Copyright law is also really clear on this. By default, 1099s own their code. Not the people who 'paid for it'.
Frankly, if I were OP, I would consider such behavior a warning sign. If they don't like it, send them packing. Clients like that are going to be nothing but trouble anyway. Being a successful contractor includes learning when to say 'no'. Bad clients can cause you to miss opportunities with good clients. They can also make your hair turn grey and fall out:) So, if they can't grasp simple concepts like this, just think of the stupidity you'll deal with once you start working for them.
Ok, pass the popcorn, let's watch the climate zealots (of either side) have a field day with this...
Do you think climate is OT? Plate tectonics are far more important for creating ice ages than atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
Q. What do all ice ages have in common? A large polar land mass and a continent that stretches almost entirely from the north to south poles. In our current ice age, that is antarctica and the americas. It is no coincidence that the present ice age started around 3 million years ago; Right around the same time the isthmus of Panama rose up out of the ocean.
Around 500 million years ago, there was an ice age in the late Ordovician period where atmospheric CO2 levels were around 4200ppm. Again, the two conditions mentioned above were met. Climate 'scientists' with an agenda typically omit this datapoint from their presentations purposely, because it doesn't fit with their theory that CO2 is the most important factor when dealing with Earth's climate.
In short: Want to cause global warming? Open the flood gates to the Panama canal and let nature do the rest. Otherwise, we have to wait for nature to bust open that isthmus for us. Either way, expect the climate cultists to give you a smug "I told you so!" if it ever happens in our lifetime. They won't ever admit it wasn't the CO2, but then, when did facts ever bother them anyway.
I think what my friend here is trying to say is that perhaps it is the touchscreen input that is "fundamentally flawed." The same argument could be applied to CSS hover and javascript mouseovers. Should Apple simply dispose of Safari on the iPad, because it is "fundamentally flawed?" There are lots of sites that use css hover menus. Poor iPad users will have a bad experience with those sites, so should we then remove the browser?
We all know Apple bans Flash because it would allow third party apps that don't have to forfeit 30% of revenue to Apple. Plain and simple. All other explanations are just someone's absurd mental gymnastics to justify Apple's stupid and shortsighted iPhone OS policies.
For a beginner in Java, I would suggest learning how to use a nice free IDE like Eclipse before attempting to write too much code. Knowing how to step through code with a debugger instead of dropping in System.out.println() everywhere, open call hierarchies and declarations, getting inline javadocs by hovering over classes and methods, content assist to give you a list of all available methods... knowing stuff like that will allow you to learn faster and make writing your first apps immensely easier.
It appears to me that the real problem is every time researchers try to present evidence for an answer to your question, you move the goal posts.
Really? I guess that all depends on your definition of 'presenting evidence'.
Skeptic
I don't believe in this climate change crap. Show me your so called evidence
Cultist
Oh, we've got plenty! Here's some peer reviewed papers.
Skeptic
No, I want to see the actual data.
Cultist
What? So you can twist it around and make it say what you want it to? No!
Skeptic
What are you talking about? Real scientific proof stands up to the harshest scrutiny. We've done our own studies and we are unable to reproduce your results. Put up or shut up.
Cultist
Whatever you oil shill! Your studies are flawed because YOU have an agenda! We don't need to talk to you. We have a consensus and we're taking this to the legislators!
Skeptic
"You have an agenda" says the guy going to the legislators... Fine, if you won't give up the data, we'll file a FOIA.
Cultist
We'll fight it! That data is uh, trade secrets! It took a lot of money to collect that data, so you can't have it without paying for it.
Skeptic
We already paid for it. You collected that data with government funds. Give it up.
Hacker
Sorry skeptics. I just hacked their mail server. They've already destroyed the data you're FOIA-ing. Here's the emails proving they intentionally manipulated the data, colluded to hide the decline in temperatures, and then destroyed their data illegally while it was the subject of an FOIA request. Sorry.
Skeptic
So they have no proof at all?
Cultist
Sure we do, we have these peer reviewed articles!!
And the funniest part of this is that the climate change cultists STILL believe in this scam! Even after their leaders have been exposed as frauds. It reminds me of the Catholics protecting the pedophile priests. Don't forget to leave some money in the collection plate, suckers.
They aren't turning off the device, they are removing your access to the iTunes store. Which is a service. Apple has a real and growing problem with people stealing the paid apps. It would be one thing if jail broken phones were just used for loading free software. But it's not.
Allow me to quote a pretty smart guy:
Why would the big four music companies agree to let Apple and others distribute their music without using DRM systems to protect it? The simplest answer is because DRMs haven’t worked, and may never work, to halt music piracy. Though the big four music companies require that all their music sold online be protected with DRMs, these same music companies continue to sell billions of CDs a year which contain completely unprotected music. That’s right! — Steve Jobs
So, what's good enough for music isn't good enough for the App store? DRM hasn't worked, and may never work to halt piracy. How did Apple win in music? Easy: They took down all the bullshit barriers. Guess what happens when Apple starts erecting bullshit barriers around their own products? Hello Android!
I did. It was nothing I didn't expect or know already. You have to ask yourself why he stopped at 400 million years. He's cherry picking his data, ignoring well known facts that contradict his entire presentation, and he completely omitted a "bigger knob" that has nothing to do with the atmosphere. Good science doesn't leave out the anomalous results. The Cult of Climate Change would do well to accept defeat.
I think it will be important in 5 years to say: We've got a climate model that's made correct predictions for the last five years, so you should trust that model as a good guide to the future.
They've made plenty of predictions. They're just always wrong. The IPCC was established in 1989 and published its first assessment report in 1990. In that report, they predicted an increase of 1.3 to 2.3 degrees C. That didn't materialize and in 1997, the IPCC had their asses handed to them in front of congress:
However, it was apparent that when the first so-called consensus was imposed upon the issue of global warming by the First Scientific Assessment of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, such an equilibrium had not been reached.
That report in 1990 stated, `When the latest atmospheric models are run with the present concentrations of greenhouse gases, their simulation of climate is generally realistic on large scales.'
The suite of climate models extant at that time predicted that the globe's mean temperature should have risen by then between 1.3 and 2.3 degrees Celsius. Slightly revised versions of these models provided the technical background for the Framework Convention on Climate Change, signed in 1992.
The observed warming since the late 19th Century has only been 0.5 degrees Celsius, or less than one-third of the predicted value. Critics argued, as I did before this committee, that there would have to be a dramatic reduction in the forecast of future warming in order to reconcile the facts and the hypotheses.
By 1995, in its second full assessment of climate change, the IPCC admitted the validity of the critics' position: `When increases in greenhouse gases only are taken into account, most climate models produce a greater mean warming than has been observed to date, unless a lower climate sensitivity to the greenhouse effect is used. There is growing evidences that increases in sulfate aerosols are partially counteracting the warming due to increases in greenhouse gases.'
Let me translate this statement. It means either it is not going to warm up as much as we said it would or something is hiding the warming. I predict that every attempt will be made to demonstrate the latter before admitting that the former is true.
So, the IPCC went back to the drawing board and returned with Mann's infamous Hockey stick graph. They declared DOOM. End of the world. Humanity was fucked. They extrapolated from 1998 temperatures (an unusually hot year) that climate change was 'for real' this time and was about to run out of control. When the skeptics got their hands on his computer model, they found that entering random data produced hockey stick graphs too. Oops.
So, uh, yeah, they've got egg on their face with that one. Nevermind that their prediction was wrong, again. Temperatures peaked in 1998 and haven't been that high since. In fact, it doesn't take a lot of searching to find examples of where their model predictions do not match reality.
In spite of all this, there are still people out there who believe in the IPCC. They cannot explain how this planet managed to have an ice age with atmospheric CO2 levels around 4200ppm during the Carboniferous period. They cannot account for three gigatons of CO2 that simply vanishes right out from under their noses each year. But hey, there's a consensus. The IPCC says so. So "the debate is over."
You're still missing the point. How are jailbroken iPhones jailbroken in the first place? Exploits. It's not like Apple is putting in a jailbreaker API. The only way you are able to Jailbreak the phone in the first place is due to the fact that it is insecure. Jailbreaking is an exploit itself. To rationalize that Adobe Flash should be banned because it might be providing a way to exploit the OS when Apple ships plenty of exploits with the device already is just absurd.
Why is the same logic not applied to the Mac? Surely there are Adobe Flash viruses running rampant there? Oh, wait, there isn't. I though the iPhone ran a real Mac OS X. Why would it be a problem there if it isn't on the Mac?
No need to answer those questions with more of your rationalizations though. The developers here know the score already.
What evidence do you have that that precludes CO2 driving temperature change? It's not enough to say that's the way it's always been, you have to give some evidence that it can't be the other way around.
Carboniferous Ice Age. CO2 - 4200ppm. Perhaps you missed that part. You didn't even have to look at my post. He actually quoted that in his post. You climate change cultists are good at shutting out facts that disagree with your religion.
There's quite a bit of historical evidence that humans did very well in previous warm periods.
CO2 levels are
Non-squirter. He said warm periods. He didn't say CO2 levels. The proper response here is to offer evidence that warmer climate would be significantly detrimental to humanity. You did not do that, so one can only assume you do not have any such evidence.
You do realize that there's a huge diff between doing something that voids your warranty (jailbreaking), and the company including (or providing) a potentially dangerous application, right?
Your original assertion was that Adobe Flash would be bad for iPhone because it would make iPhone insecure. The iPhone is already insecure. A root exploit is a root exploit, whether it is available via Adobe Flash or the iPhone OS. Your statement is simply rationalizing Apple's decision to disallow Flash, Java, and anything else that would loosen Apple's chokehold on iPhone apps. Perhaps you've heard of Stockholm syndrome? (^_^)
Thanks for the reply Brian. I really appreciate it that Google has worked so hard to make Android as open as it is. As another poster correctly guessed, I'm not a radio/hardware engineer, so the thickness aspect was not obvious to me. However, for me at least, slightly bulkier hardware would be well worth the freedom to easily travel between networks.
I spent over $800 on my last phone three years ago (N95) and I did not buy it because it was thin. I bought it because it had the best hardware on the market at the time. Unfortunately, it won't work on AT&T, because I bought the euro model that was available first. The 3G only works on TMO in the US. That sucks. I've been burned by this exact problem once already. With the N1, android seems to have finally caught up to my 3 year old hardware. I was excited to hear about it. But when I saw the same radio frequency limitations applied to the N1, I was naturally disappointed.
All that said, the N95 is long overdue for an upgrade. Android seems to be the most attractive phone on the market. Android's openness has allowed REAL apps flourish as opposed to childish games and iFart type apps. I don't think it will be much longer before you guys pick me up as a customer. Keep up the good work:)
So, Google/HTC could have very easily made this one phone model compatible with not only T-Mobile and AT&T, but pretty much any 3GSM network worldwide if they only included the right combination of power amplifiers. According to iSuppli’s teardown of the Nexus One, the four small power amplifiers that are in the Nexus One only account for $2.20 in manufacturing costs. $2.20! How much more could a different combination of power amplifiers have cost? Maybe another $2 (at most)?!
It just sounds like a deliberate decision to aid the wireless carrier oligopoly. Given that we’ve seen HTC’s FCC documents to introduce an AT&T oriented version of the Nexus One, you’d think that overall engineering, manufacturing, warehousing, and sales expenses would be lowered enough by offering a single model that could replace two.
The deliberate lack of network compatibility is simply bewildering.
Is mankind causing this warming? There is more uncertainty here, but signs are increasingly pointing towards the affirmative.
What signs? The IPCC's signs? Those aren't worth the paper they're printed on. Climategate has proven conclusively that those people are working in an echo chamber. All they have are computer models loaded with junk data.
The real question is, "Does the cost of adaptation outweigh the cost of going carbon free?"
As AC already pointed out, that presumes going 'carbon free' would change anything. It wouldn't make any difference at all. To suggest that it would based on 'the signs' is just evangelical preaching. According to the cult of climate change's own estimates, Man is adding 4-8 additional gigatons of CO2 to the atmosphere each year. Yet, they can't even account for what happens to 3 gigatons of CO2 annually.
Furthermore, if we burned every single ounce of known fossil fuels on the planet tomorrow, that would approximately double the atmospheric CO2 to about 720ppm. During the Carboniferous period, this planet witnessed an ice age with atmospheric CO2 levels on the order of 4200ppm. That is very strong evidence that CO2 is a bit player in the climate game.
Most climate scientists say that the Earth is headed for a 4 C rise in temperature, regardless of what humans do at this point.
And yet, they can provide no evidence that warming would be a bad thing. They are pretty empty handed when you ask for evidence of any sort. Here's a nice little factoid for the Cult of Climate Change: 70000 years ago, mankind nearly went extinct... DURING AN ICE AGE. Honestly, what do you think is going to be more hospitable to man? Icy barren tundra or lush tropical forests?
Seriously? CO2? They want to scare us into doing something good for the environment, and THAT is their boogeyman? They could've gone for the mercury in coal fired plant emissions that is poisoning our seafood in the pacific. They could have gone with the fact that coal emissions are radioactive as all fuck.
No, they go with the clear odorless gas that makes plants happy. What a bunch of complete fucking morons... and they couldn't even get that right. What happens to the planet when we RUN OUT of CO2? What happens when all the little phytoplankton have entombed our precious CO2 as limestone at the bottom of the ocean. We're DOOMED without it, and CO2 is at the lowest levels seen in hundreds of millions of years. We should be HAPPY it is rising.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple would like to see Java die and is doing it's best to kill it
All of their major online properties run on Java. iTMS, Apple store, Mobile Me ... Seems like odd behavior if the company wants to 'see Java die.' Besides, how else are they going to sell 11 million songs a day? Rails? PHP? .Net?
Hudsucker Proxy.
Some markets? Their worldwide browser share has plummeted to around 54%. http://gs.statcounter.com/ I assume strongholds like Korea are IE for character set reasons, but they'll be less than 50% worldwide in just a few more months. The web stagnated for 10 years because of MS. Now that they're losing their grip, they're back to play embrace, extend, extinguish once again. This time they're not going to be able to crush some little one product company like Netscape though. They're up against Google and Apple. I hope those two stomp a mudhole in MS once and for all.
Whenever anyone runs objective tests of browser functionality, Opera usually does very well. I'm amazed it doesn't have more market share.
They have amazing marketshare in Russia. http://gs.statcounter.com/
Agreed. Netscape Communicator died for a reason. It was a slow, bloated, 'all-in-one' package of crap. I'd prefer to see them working on more important things, like SVG animation. They're way behind webkit and presto on that one. HTML5 != address books. Firefox team needs to maintain focus on their core product... their rendering engine.
Big Tobacco health data. Big Pharma test data. Big Oil environmental data. Enron accounting or trading data. Retails sales zappers.
Don't forget about CRU's Harry.
Just sayin'
As for the guy at hand being contracted to produce code, sorry, but if they come to him saying "Write X for us", then they own it because they paid for all of the development.
You're overlooking one important aspect... When contracter writes X for you, he's using libraries he produced long before meeting you. In fact, producing X for you is mainly a matter of gluing together pre-existing, reusable code libraries A, B, and C. Libraries A, B, and C are the culmination of years worth of work. The only thing new in X is the glue code that goes between those libraries. Do you think you should now own libraries that took years to produce because you paid for two months worth of contract work?
If you write X own your own and then decide to sell copies of it, then you own it. However if someone else comes and pays for you to write X, they own it because they paid all the costs of producing it.
That is the point OP is trying to make here. You did not pay "all the costs" of the finished product. You paid for a thin layer of glue code. US Copyright law is also really clear on this. By default, 1099s own their code. Not the people who 'paid for it'.
Frankly, if I were OP, I would consider such behavior a warning sign. If they don't like it, send them packing. Clients like that are going to be nothing but trouble anyway. Being a successful contractor includes learning when to say 'no'. Bad clients can cause you to miss opportunities with good clients. They can also make your hair turn grey and fall out :) So, if they can't grasp simple concepts like this, just think of the stupidity you'll deal with once you start working for them.
Ok, pass the popcorn, let's watch the climate zealots (of either side) have a field day with this...
Do you think climate is OT? Plate tectonics are far more important for creating ice ages than atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
Q. What do all ice ages have in common? A large polar land mass and a continent that stretches almost entirely from the north to south poles. In our current ice age, that is antarctica and the americas. It is no coincidence that the present ice age started around 3 million years ago; Right around the same time the isthmus of Panama rose up out of the ocean.
Around 500 million years ago, there was an ice age in the late Ordovician period where atmospheric CO2 levels were around 4200ppm. Again, the two conditions mentioned above were met. Climate 'scientists' with an agenda typically omit this datapoint from their presentations purposely, because it doesn't fit with their theory that CO2 is the most important factor when dealing with Earth's climate.
In short: Want to cause global warming? Open the flood gates to the Panama canal and let nature do the rest. Otherwise, we have to wait for nature to bust open that isthmus for us. Either way, expect the climate cultists to give you a smug "I told you so!" if it ever happens in our lifetime. They won't ever admit it wasn't the CO2, but then, when did facts ever bother them anyway.
Exactly. I'd like to see those NFL motherfuckers pay some coin for "prohibiting" descriptions of games they broadcast.
Want to reduce their coinage? I know an easy way to do it: Stop watching.
Seriously. I thought this was news for nerds.
I think what my friend here is trying to say is that perhaps it is the touchscreen input that is "fundamentally flawed." The same argument could be applied to CSS hover and javascript mouseovers. Should Apple simply dispose of Safari on the iPad, because it is "fundamentally flawed?" There are lots of sites that use css hover menus. Poor iPad users will have a bad experience with those sites, so should we then remove the browser?
We all know Apple bans Flash because it would allow third party apps that don't have to forfeit 30% of revenue to Apple. Plain and simple. All other explanations are just someone's absurd mental gymnastics to justify Apple's stupid and shortsighted iPhone OS policies.
For a beginner in Java, I would suggest learning how to use a nice free IDE like Eclipse before attempting to write too much code. Knowing how to step through code with a debugger instead of dropping in System.out.println() everywhere, open call hierarchies and declarations, getting inline javadocs by hovering over classes and methods, content assist to give you a list of all available methods... knowing stuff like that will allow you to learn faster and make writing your first apps immensely easier.
It appears to me that the real problem is every time researchers try to present evidence for an answer to your question, you move the goal posts.
Really? I guess that all depends on your definition of 'presenting evidence'.
Skeptic I don't believe in this climate change crap. Show me your so called evidence Cultist Oh, we've got plenty! Here's some peer reviewed papers. Skeptic No, I want to see the actual data. Cultist What? So you can twist it around and make it say what you want it to? No! Skeptic What are you talking about? Real scientific proof stands up to the harshest scrutiny. We've done our own studies and we are unable to reproduce your results. Put up or shut up. Cultist Whatever you oil shill! Your studies are flawed because YOU have an agenda! We don't need to talk to you. We have a consensus and we're taking this to the legislators! Skeptic "You have an agenda" says the guy going to the legislators... Fine, if you won't give up the data, we'll file a FOIA. Cultist We'll fight it! That data is uh, trade secrets! It took a lot of money to collect that data, so you can't have it without paying for it. Skeptic We already paid for it. You collected that data with government funds. Give it up. Hacker Sorry skeptics. I just hacked their mail server. They've already destroyed the data you're FOIA-ing. Here's the emails proving they intentionally manipulated the data, colluded to hide the decline in temperatures, and then destroyed their data illegally while it was the subject of an FOIA request. Sorry. Skeptic So they have no proof at all? Cultist Sure we do, we have these peer reviewed articles!!And the funniest part of this is that the climate change cultists STILL believe in this scam! Even after their leaders have been exposed as frauds. It reminds me of the Catholics protecting the pedophile priests. Don't forget to leave some money in the collection plate, suckers.
They aren't turning off the device, they are removing your access to the iTunes store. Which is a service. Apple has a real and growing problem with people stealing the paid apps. It would be one thing if jail broken phones were just used for loading free software. But it's not.
Allow me to quote a pretty smart guy:
So, what's good enough for music isn't good enough for the App store? DRM hasn't worked, and may never work to halt piracy. How did Apple win in music? Easy: They took down all the bullshit barriers. Guess what happens when Apple starts erecting bullshit barriers around their own products? Hello Android!
Watch the lecture.
I did. It was nothing I didn't expect or know already. You have to ask yourself why he stopped at 400 million years. He's cherry picking his data, ignoring well known facts that contradict his entire presentation, and he completely omitted a "bigger knob" that has nothing to do with the atmosphere. Good science doesn't leave out the anomalous results. The Cult of Climate Change would do well to accept defeat.
I think it will be important in 5 years to say: We've got a climate model that's made correct predictions for the last five years, so you should trust that model as a good guide to the future.
They've made plenty of predictions. They're just always wrong. The IPCC was established in 1989 and published its first assessment report in 1990. In that report, they predicted an increase of 1.3 to 2.3 degrees C. That didn't materialize and in 1997, the IPCC had their asses handed to them in front of congress:
So, the IPCC went back to the drawing board and returned with Mann's infamous Hockey stick graph. They declared DOOM. End of the world. Humanity was fucked. They extrapolated from 1998 temperatures (an unusually hot year) that climate change was 'for real' this time and was about to run out of control. When the skeptics got their hands on his computer model, they found that entering random data produced hockey stick graphs too. Oops.
So, uh, yeah, they've got egg on their face with that one. Nevermind that their prediction was wrong, again. Temperatures peaked in 1998 and haven't been that high since. In fact, it doesn't take a lot of searching to find examples of where their model predictions do not match reality.
In spite of all this, there are still people out there who believe in the IPCC. They cannot explain how this planet managed to have an ice age with atmospheric CO2 levels around 4200ppm during the Carboniferous period. They cannot account for three gigatons of CO2 that simply vanishes right out from under their noses each year. But hey, there's a consensus. The IPCC says so. So "the debate is over."
Nevermind Hansen's faked data. Nevermind the
So when it's Mr. Obama's records it's not ok, but it's just peachy when it's our records?
Sorry, but relativism won't save your argument. ;)
A jailbroken iPhone requires modifying the OS
You're still missing the point. How are jailbroken iPhones jailbroken in the first place? Exploits. It's not like Apple is putting in a jailbreaker API. The only way you are able to Jailbreak the phone in the first place is due to the fact that it is insecure. Jailbreaking is an exploit itself. To rationalize that Adobe Flash should be banned because it might be providing a way to exploit the OS when Apple ships plenty of exploits with the device already is just absurd.
Why is the same logic not applied to the Mac? Surely there are Adobe Flash viruses running rampant there? Oh, wait, there isn't. I though the iPhone ran a real Mac OS X. Why would it be a problem there if it isn't on the Mac?
No need to answer those questions with more of your rationalizations though. The developers here know the score already.
What evidence do you have that that precludes CO2 driving temperature change? It's not enough to say that's the way it's always been, you have to give some evidence that it can't be the other way around.
Carboniferous Ice Age. CO2 - 4200ppm. Perhaps you missed that part. You didn't even have to look at my post. He actually quoted that in his post. You climate change cultists are good at shutting out facts that disagree with your religion.
There's quite a bit of historical evidence that humans did very well in previous warm periods.
CO2 levels are
Non-squirter. He said warm periods. He didn't say CO2 levels. The proper response here is to offer evidence that warmer climate would be significantly detrimental to humanity. You did not do that, so one can only assume you do not have any such evidence.
And that's how you lose a debate.
You do realize that there's a huge diff between doing something that voids your warranty (jailbreaking), and the company including (or providing) a potentially dangerous application, right?
Your original assertion was that Adobe Flash would be bad for iPhone because it would make iPhone insecure. The iPhone is already insecure. A root exploit is a root exploit, whether it is available via Adobe Flash or the iPhone OS. Your statement is simply rationalizing Apple's decision to disallow Flash, Java, and anything else that would loosen Apple's chokehold on iPhone apps. Perhaps you've heard of Stockholm syndrome? (^_^)
Thanks for the reply Brian. I really appreciate it that Google has worked so hard to make Android as open as it is. As another poster correctly guessed, I'm not a radio/hardware engineer, so the thickness aspect was not obvious to me. However, for me at least, slightly bulkier hardware would be well worth the freedom to easily travel between networks.
I spent over $800 on my last phone three years ago (N95) and I did not buy it because it was thin. I bought it because it had the best hardware on the market at the time. Unfortunately, it won't work on AT&T, because I bought the euro model that was available first. The 3G only works on TMO in the US. That sucks. I've been burned by this exact problem once already. With the N1, android seems to have finally caught up to my 3 year old hardware. I was excited to hear about it. But when I saw the same radio frequency limitations applied to the N1, I was naturally disappointed.
All that said, the N95 is long overdue for an upgrade. Android seems to be the most attractive phone on the market. Android's openness has allowed REAL apps flourish as opposed to childish games and iFart type apps. I don't think it will be much longer before you guys pick me up as a customer. Keep up the good work :)
What was that about not being evil again?
Jailbroken iPhones ARE breaches in the walled garden. Flash wouldn't be providing anything new in that respect.
Is mankind causing this warming? There is more uncertainty here, but signs are increasingly pointing towards the affirmative.
What signs? The IPCC's signs? Those aren't worth the paper they're printed on. Climategate has proven conclusively that those people are working in an echo chamber. All they have are computer models loaded with junk data.
The real question is, "Does the cost of adaptation outweigh the cost of going carbon free?"
As AC already pointed out, that presumes going 'carbon free' would change anything. It wouldn't make any difference at all. To suggest that it would based on 'the signs' is just evangelical preaching. According to the cult of climate change's own estimates, Man is adding 4-8 additional gigatons of CO2 to the atmosphere each year. Yet, they can't even account for what happens to 3 gigatons of CO2 annually.
Furthermore, if we burned every single ounce of known fossil fuels on the planet tomorrow, that would approximately double the atmospheric CO2 to about 720ppm. During the Carboniferous period, this planet witnessed an ice age with atmospheric CO2 levels on the order of 4200ppm. That is very strong evidence that CO2 is a bit player in the climate game.
Most climate scientists say that the Earth is headed for a 4 C rise in temperature, regardless of what humans do at this point.
And yet, they can provide no evidence that warming would be a bad thing. They are pretty empty handed when you ask for evidence of any sort. Here's a nice little factoid for the Cult of Climate Change: 70000 years ago, mankind nearly went extinct... DURING AN ICE AGE. Honestly, what do you think is going to be more hospitable to man? Icy barren tundra or lush tropical forests?
Seriously? CO2? They want to scare us into doing something good for the environment, and THAT is their boogeyman? They could've gone for the mercury in coal fired plant emissions that is poisoning our seafood in the pacific. They could have gone with the fact that coal emissions are radioactive as all fuck.
No, they go with the clear odorless gas that makes plants happy. What a bunch of complete fucking morons... and they couldn't even get that right. What happens to the planet when we RUN OUT of CO2? What happens when all the little phytoplankton have entombed our precious CO2 as limestone at the bottom of the ocean. We're DOOMED without it, and CO2 is at the lowest levels seen in hundreds of millions of years. We should be HAPPY it is rising.