Surface acidification occurs because CO2 is not the limiting nutrient. I think it's ironic that a process which once scrubbed the air of CO2 no longer works due to clean air regulations.
Yes, because cash, a.k.a. legal tender, can only be made of gold or silver according to the US Constitution, article 1, section 10. Anything else is explicitly unconstitutional.
I'd even go as far as saying that downloading continuously at max capacity is somewhat immoral in itself, so long as you know that you are using far more than everyone else _and_ that it causes congestion problems.
Imagine if you could only reach websites hosted by your ISP. THAT is what the supporters of Net Neutrality are fighting to prevent. NN is not about what the ISP charges it's users. NN is about preventing ISPs from charging websites a fee to receive traffic. It would be a death of 1000 cuts for any website when every major ISP on the planet comes looking for a handout.
It's really disappointing that/. editors are posting misleading stories like this. They're making net neutrality supporters look like morons who don't understand simple supply and demand. I'm beginning to wonder which side/. is really on here.
They aren't D or R. They are the ruling elite. What makes you think any of them are pro-worker when they remain complicit in human trafficking and wage slavery. There is only one party in America. You are given a choice to provide the illusion of freedom. Show them you see through the charade. Boycott the vote in 2008.
I love how the people who were most against telecom immunity are now cheering on this illegal invasion of privacy. Meanwhile, those who didn't care when the government illegally spied on millions of Americans now care all of a sudden about the privacy of one little individual.
Of course, that's all putting aside your misconception that the OS X on the iPhone is the same as the desktop OS X.
But by all means, distort facts and cling to your deal-breaker scenario as evidence that the device is crippled.
I didn't overlook a thing. We're in agreement on that point. Desktop OS X and iPhone OS X are different: The iPhone version of OS X is intentionally crippled, and the client and server versions of OS X are not.
Quick quiz: What's the screen resolution of an iPhone?
480 x 320 pixels
720x576 plugged into my television or computer monitor. I guess you overlooked the part where I said:
An iPhone, a bluetooth keyboard and mouse, a dock, and a TV could be the "Mac mini to go" but thanks to Apple's lame policies, it's just a bit player in the mobile space instead.
iPhone is a computer. BYOKDM. The iPhone could be the ultimate portable computer. Unfortunately, Apple's unreasonable demands on developers and intentional crippling of the iPhone are preventing it from becoming a real success.
A developer who asks "where's Photoshop" when discussing a phone shouldn't expect anyone to listen to his/her opinions.
Quick quiz: What runs OS X, has a 600MHz processor, 128 MB of RAM, and about 30GB of space for file storage?
Answer: A computer. However, I would have also accepted "iPhone." I remember running Photoshop on one of those old iMacs. It did the job quite nicely. To argue that an iPhone is just "a phone" is simple minded stupidity. That's like calling a Jaguar S-Type "a phone" because it has a phone built into it.
As a developer who is educated enough to understand the difference, I find it really disappointing that the new iPhones are too crippled to run anything more taxing than apps that make light saber sounds or calculate tips. Just imagine where Apple would be today if Steve Jobs had decided to lock developers out of the iMac and only allowed apps like email, web browsing, and tip calculators.
You're welcome to your opinion, but as a developer, I will not be developing any applications under those circumstances. It looks like I'm not alone either. Microsoft and Adobe are no shows on the iPhone. So are applications that take advantage of the full blown install of Mac OS X on the iPhone.
Where's Photoshop? Where's Office? Heck, where's Grapher?!? An iPhone, a bluetooth keyboard and mouse, a dock, and a TV could be the "Mac mini to go" but thanks to Apple's lame policies, it's just a bit player in the mobile space instead. Too bad, since it could have been an awesome device if Apple had not chosen to cripple it.
if Google takes a cut of only 5% of the price, compared to Apple's gargantuan bite of your work
If Google takes any sized bite it is too large. My app, should I choose to distribute it, might sell more androids. That's the only "cut" they should expect. I don't have to pay anyone to write an app for my computer. Why should my phone be any different?
In addition, the iPod will never support it. There goes 70% of the potential users.
And the largest music store in the US. But that's exactly what this is about, isn't it? Reinventing Fairplay so they can re-establish their cartel... Too bad for them, since to do it, they need a vertically integrated solution like iTunes/iTMS/iPod. Apple makes everything from the hardware all the way down to the QuickTime file format. That's why everyone who attempts to compete with Apple fails. Tougher still: They not only have to make all the pieces to succeed, they have to do a better job of it than Apple. They will fail, miserably. The RIAA/MPAA might as well burn the money they're spending on this scheme. Who really needs the RIAA anymore anyway? With sites like TuneCore, why would you sign away most of your gross income to the record company? You can get listed on iTunes for a year for about $30. Make it $40 and you can get listed on all the stores.
Apologies if I'm missing something here; I just followed your links, skimmed them very quickly, and spent 5 minutes checking the arithmetic.
I actually took the carbon calculations directly from a yahoo answers post where I found both links. I assumed the poster was close... as you said, close enough to make my point adequately. There is an enormous difference between C in limestone and C in fossil fuels. The difference is so huge, fossil fuels can hardly be considered significant by comparison. The other calculation I derived from 0.038 + 77% roughly making 0.07. The article I linked to indicated that if all fossil fuels were burned tomorrow, it would contribute an additional 77% and I assumed that was over current levels instead of over the amount we've already burned... since that creates the largest number possible. I simply tried to err on the side of caution.
Regardless of the precision of the calculations, the results are still accurate. No one outside of the climate change cult seriously thinks we can turn Earth in to Venus with fossil fuels. To even suggest it is preposterous.
To the climate scientists who have actually done the calculations with knowledge of all three cycles, there is virtually no support that plants and algae are going to have any significant effect. The consensus is that the method that CO2 will eventually be removed is by slow sedimentation.
Really? What does the "consensus" say about the three gigatons of CO2 that disappear annually into an unknown sink. Considering that three gigatons is about half of what is contributed by fossil fuels annually, I wouldn't call that an insignificant amount. Well, reading that climate scientist's page indicates all three hypothesis mentioned involve plant growth. It seems the "consensus" actually considers increased plant growth a real possibility as an explanation to that observation.
The largest sink of carbon on the planet is not organic. It is limestone and dolomite. Those two absolutely dwarf the C locked in fossil fuels. All the fossil fuels on Earth sum up to about 9x10^15 grams. Total mass of C in limestone on the other hand is around 3x10^22grams. Soooo, about 3 million times as much C in limestone as in fossil fuels. Most of that was in the atmosphere. Most of that is now in the ground as a result of plankton and ocean sedimentation.
It may be enough to tip the atmosphere into a runaway state that would result in a Venus-like atmosphere. But that's beside the point.
It isn't beside the point... it is one of the stupidest thing you could possibly say. Who fed you that? Just saying something like that damages any credibility you might have. The atmosphere of Venus is 96.5% CO2. The atmosphere of Earth is roughly 380 parts per million (0.038%). In a hundred years of burning fossil fuels non stop, we've witnessed a rise in atmospheric CO2 of about 100ppm (0.01%). In the link above, you'll see that if you burned all the known fossil fuel reserves today, it would add roughly 77% more CO2 to the atmosphere for a total of what.... 0.07%? That's not even close to the Ordovician atmosphere, much less the Venusian.
So, I just read the article (weird right?) and it says:
with only 14 students enrolled, they actually discovered a statistically significant effect of what they call "knowledge-based work" (KBW), and so were able to publish even their initial efforts.
The workers recruited from the female student population of Laval University, selecting for individuals with a normal body mass and eating habits. Tests were administered at a set point in the menstrual cycle to control for its effect on diet.
14(!) women are eating more under stress. Wow, I'm shocked.... Have these people ever heard of sampling bias? This is more of an anecdote than news.
I know not being able to RTFA is a requirement for Slashdot editors, but the first paragraph of that article says the quote was from 1997, not 2007. They didn't shut Apple down after that, instead they paid NeXT $300m to take over the brand.
don't kid yourself that the Apple of today has anything to do with the Apple of 1997.
Thank goodness. Gil Amelio nearly destroyed the company single handedly.... it's almost like you're complaining that 'Coke classic' has nothing to do with 'new Coke.'
Also, I would categorize this as a low priority bug(OMFG? Pressing a button AN EXTRA COUPLE OF TIMES? You still alive?), so don't hold your breath.
It is also in the 1.8 branch..
You know one thing I find annoying?
Users that find bugs and never tell you about them.
And you are... the soup Nazi? Seriously, what the hell?? Is it your time of month or something? After reading that flamebait, I'm seriously wondering if you work for Microsoft. You seem to be intentionally trying to piss off the Mozilla user base.
Webkit was also the first to pass Acid3 and the first to support all CSS3 selectors. Webkit support for CSS is simply way out in front of other browsers though... It supports gradient, stroke, transform, box shadow, border radius. They've also got an HTML 5 client side database built into the browser. You can check it out in Apple's latest version of safari.
For someone to do anything requires some amount of motivation on the part of that person.
It also requires that they feel their effort will not be a total waste. The machines are obviously rigged. Gerrymandering would prevent a fair vote even if they weren't. And even if the process were fair, you're still left with a false choice between two candidates who are the same.
Offshore drilling
McCain: Yes
Obama: Yes
Telecom Immunity
McCain: Yes
Obama: Yes
End the war now?
McCain: No
Obama: No
Increase the size of our large standing army
McCain: Yes
Obama: Yes
Continue issuing unconstitutional fiat money
McCain: Yes
Obama: Yes
The unarmed protestors who were being beaten and pepper sprayed by riot police in Denver were not radical right wingers. They were left wing voters who realize they have no candidate in this election. Yeah, you must be right. Everyone who isn't voting must be an unmotivated slob. They're obviously too lazy to vote... They were willing to travel across the country to protest and endure violence, but they're just too damned lazy to drive a few miles across town to cast their ballot down a memory hole.
Just use the wind turbines to charge the capacitors, the capacitors to charge the batteries, and the batteries could be shipped by truck anywhere in the nation. Problem solved!;-)
Slashdot Mirror
I guess that explains how algae blooms can form
It doesn't, but it's interesting that you'd suggest it does with no evidence beyond a few unrelated articles.
Surface acidification occurs because CO2 is not the limiting nutrient. I think it's ironic that a process which once scrubbed the air of CO2 no longer works due to clean air regulations.
They won't be making a pile of cash out of trees.
Yes, because cash, a.k.a. legal tender, can only be made of gold or silver according to the US Constitution, article 1, section 10. Anything else is explicitly unconstitutional.
I'd even go as far as saying that downloading continuously at max capacity is somewhat immoral in itself, so long as you know that you are using far more than everyone else _and_ that it causes congestion problems.
Imagine if you could only reach websites hosted by your ISP. THAT is what the supporters of Net Neutrality are fighting to prevent. NN is not about what the ISP charges it's users. NN is about preventing ISPs from charging websites a fee to receive traffic. It would be a death of 1000 cuts for any website when every major ISP on the planet comes looking for a handout.
It's really disappointing that /. editors are posting misleading stories like this. They're making net neutrality supporters look like morons who don't understand simple supply and demand. I'm beginning to wonder which side /. is really on here.
They aren't D or R. They are the ruling elite. What makes you think any of them are pro-worker when they remain complicit in human trafficking and wage slavery. There is only one party in America. You are given a choice to provide the illusion of freedom. Show them you see through the charade. Boycott the vote in 2008.
I love how the people who were most against telecom immunity are now cheering on this illegal invasion of privacy. Meanwhile, those who didn't care when the government illegally spied on millions of Americans now care all of a sudden about the privacy of one little individual.
And you overlooked the part where I said:
But by all means, distort facts and cling to your deal-breaker scenario as evidence that the device is crippled.
I didn't overlook a thing. We're in agreement on that point. Desktop OS X and iPhone OS X are different: The iPhone version of OS X is intentionally crippled, and the client and server versions of OS X are not.
Quick quiz: What's the screen resolution of an iPhone?
480 x 320 pixels
720x576 plugged into my television or computer monitor. I guess you overlooked the part where I said:
iPhone is a computer. BYOKDM. The iPhone could be the ultimate portable computer. Unfortunately, Apple's unreasonable demands on developers and intentional crippling of the iPhone are preventing it from becoming a real success.
A developer who asks "where's Photoshop" when discussing a phone shouldn't expect anyone to listen to his/her opinions.
Quick quiz: What runs OS X, has a 600MHz processor, 128 MB of RAM, and about 30GB of space for file storage?
Answer: A computer. However, I would have also accepted "iPhone." I remember running Photoshop on one of those old iMacs. It did the job quite nicely. To argue that an iPhone is just "a phone" is simple minded stupidity. That's like calling a Jaguar S-Type "a phone" because it has a phone built into it.
As a developer who is educated enough to understand the difference, I find it really disappointing that the new iPhones are too crippled to run anything more taxing than apps that make light saber sounds or calculate tips. Just imagine where Apple would be today if Steve Jobs had decided to lock developers out of the iMac and only allowed apps like email, web browsing, and tip calculators.
I disagree
You're welcome to your opinion, but as a developer, I will not be developing any applications under those circumstances. It looks like I'm not alone either. Microsoft and Adobe are no shows on the iPhone. So are applications that take advantage of the full blown install of Mac OS X on the iPhone.
Where's Photoshop? Where's Office? Heck, where's Grapher?!? An iPhone, a bluetooth keyboard and mouse, a dock, and a TV could be the "Mac mini to go" but thanks to Apple's lame policies, it's just a bit player in the mobile space instead. Too bad, since it could have been an awesome device if Apple had not chosen to cripple it.
if Google takes a cut of only 5% of the price, compared to Apple's gargantuan bite of your work
If Google takes any sized bite it is too large. My app, should I choose to distribute it, might sell more androids. That's the only "cut" they should expect. I don't have to pay anyone to write an app for my computer. Why should my phone be any different?
In addition, the iPod will never support it. There goes 70% of the potential users.
And the largest music store in the US. But that's exactly what this is about, isn't it? Reinventing Fairplay so they can re-establish their cartel... Too bad for them, since to do it, they need a vertically integrated solution like iTunes/iTMS/iPod. Apple makes everything from the hardware all the way down to the QuickTime file format. That's why everyone who attempts to compete with Apple fails. Tougher still: They not only have to make all the pieces to succeed, they have to do a better job of it than Apple. They will fail, miserably. The RIAA/MPAA might as well burn the money they're spending on this scheme. Who really needs the RIAA anymore anyway? With sites like TuneCore, why would you sign away most of your gross income to the record company? You can get listed on iTunes for a year for about $30. Make it $40 and you can get listed on all the stores.
Apologies if I'm missing something here; I just followed your links, skimmed them very quickly, and spent 5 minutes checking the arithmetic.
I actually took the carbon calculations directly from a yahoo answers post where I found both links. I assumed the poster was close... as you said, close enough to make my point adequately. There is an enormous difference between C in limestone and C in fossil fuels. The difference is so huge, fossil fuels can hardly be considered significant by comparison. The other calculation I derived from 0.038 + 77% roughly making 0.07. The article I linked to indicated that if all fossil fuels were burned tomorrow, it would contribute an additional 77% and I assumed that was over current levels instead of over the amount we've already burned... since that creates the largest number possible. I simply tried to err on the side of caution.
Regardless of the precision of the calculations, the results are still accurate. No one outside of the climate change cult seriously thinks we can turn Earth in to Venus with fossil fuels. To even suggest it is preposterous.
To the climate scientists who have actually done the calculations with knowledge of all three cycles, there is virtually no support that plants and algae are going to have any significant effect. The consensus is that the method that CO2 will eventually be removed is by slow sedimentation.
Really? What does the "consensus" say about the three gigatons of CO2 that disappear annually into an unknown sink. Considering that three gigatons is about half of what is contributed by fossil fuels annually, I wouldn't call that an insignificant amount. Well, reading that climate scientist's page indicates all three hypothesis mentioned involve plant growth. It seems the "consensus" actually considers increased plant growth a real possibility as an explanation to that observation.
Since that amount of carbon has never been in the atmosphere at once we have no idea what it would be like.
There have been many times that amount of C in the atmosphere. About 500 million years ago, Earth went through an ice age with CO2 levels 8 to 20 time higher than they are presently.
The largest sink of carbon on the planet is not organic. It is limestone and dolomite. Those two absolutely dwarf the C locked in fossil fuels. All the fossil fuels on Earth sum up to about 9x10^15 grams. Total mass of C in limestone on the other hand is around 3x10^22grams. Soooo, about 3 million times as much C in limestone as in fossil fuels. Most of that was in the atmosphere. Most of that is now in the ground as a result of plankton and ocean sedimentation.
It may be enough to tip the atmosphere into a runaway state that would result in a Venus-like atmosphere. But that's beside the point.
It isn't beside the point... it is one of the stupidest thing you could possibly say. Who fed you that? Just saying something like that damages any credibility you might have. The atmosphere of Venus is 96.5% CO2. The atmosphere of Earth is roughly 380 parts per million (0.038%). In a hundred years of burning fossil fuels non stop, we've witnessed a rise in atmospheric CO2 of about 100ppm (0.01%). In the link above, you'll see that if you burned all the known fossil fuel reserves today, it would add roughly 77% more CO2 to the atmosphere for a total of what.... 0.07%? That's not even close to the Ordovician atmosphere, much less the Venusian.
So, I just read the article (weird right?) and it says:
14(!) women are eating more under stress. Wow, I'm shocked.... Have these people ever heard of sampling bias? This is more of an anecdote than news.
I know not being able to RTFA is a requirement for Slashdot editors, but the first paragraph of that article says the quote was from 1997, not 2007. They didn't shut Apple down after that, instead they paid NeXT $300m to take over the brand.
Apple bought NeXT for $400 million. You're off by about $100,000,000.00 bucks. Perhaps you too should read a few articles.
don't kid yourself that the Apple of today has anything to do with the Apple of 1997.
Thank goodness. Gil Amelio nearly destroyed the company single handedly.... it's almost like you're complaining that 'Coke classic' has nothing to do with 'new Coke.'
What would I do? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders
Oh delicious irony!
Also, I would categorize this as a low priority bug(OMFG? Pressing a button AN EXTRA COUPLE OF TIMES? You still alive?), so don't hold your breath. It is also in the 1.8 branch..
You know one thing I find annoying?
Users that find bugs and never tell you about them.
And you are... the soup Nazi? Seriously, what the hell?? Is it your time of month or something? After reading that flamebait, I'm seriously wondering if you work for Microsoft. You seem to be intentionally trying to piss off the Mozilla user base.
Safari 3.1 doesn't pass acid3 either, unless you're running a nightly build. It's bleeding edge right now, but available.
I can resize the text box in which I'm typing. I don't see that on Firefox, so I presume that it's application-specific. Neat.
That is a WebKit feature.
Actually, it's a CSS3 property that nobody but the webkit team has bothered to support yet. You can turn it off via CSS with a:
Webkit was also the first to pass Acid3 and the first to support all CSS3 selectors. Webkit support for CSS is simply way out in front of other browsers though... It supports gradient, stroke, transform, box shadow, border radius. They've also got an HTML 5 client side database built into the browser. You can check it out in Apple's latest version of safari.
And does it really matter?
The US Constitution doesn't matter? That says all I need to know about you.
For someone to do anything requires some amount of motivation on the part of that person.
It also requires that they feel their effort will not be a total waste. The machines are obviously rigged. Gerrymandering would prevent a fair vote even if they weren't. And even if the process were fair, you're still left with a false choice between two candidates who are the same.
Offshore drilling McCain: Yes Obama: Yes Telecom Immunity McCain: Yes Obama: Yes End the war now? McCain: No Obama: No Increase the size of our large standing army McCain: Yes Obama: Yes Continue issuing unconstitutional fiat money McCain: Yes Obama: YesThe unarmed protestors who were being beaten and pepper sprayed by riot police in Denver were not radical right wingers. They were left wing voters who realize they have no candidate in this election. Yeah, you must be right. Everyone who isn't voting must be an unmotivated slob. They're obviously too lazy to vote... They were willing to travel across the country to protest and endure violence, but they're just too damned lazy to drive a few miles across town to cast their ballot down a memory hole.
Just use the wind turbines to charge the capacitors, the capacitors to charge the batteries, and the batteries could be shipped by truck anywhere in the nation. Problem solved! ;-)