Mr. Muller was willing, at the beginning of his research we are discussing, to consider the possibility that human-created carbon dioxide contributes to global warming. Is that a problem for you?
The problem is that you are misrepresenting his statements, probably on purpose. He fully believed that human-created CO2 contributes to AGW.
All I can say is: that's a mean pun.
I'm not concerned lol. I merely pointed out that Java and C# are protected by similar licenses, although you didn't know it. For some reason you were expressing your concern about Java.
Also, I think that C# is an excellent language overall, and.NET is a fine platform. The reason I choose not to use it is so I can avoid working with incompetent programmers.
This is why open source licences are so important. OS projects need to protect themselves from exploitation, and companies need to signal their commitment with an appropriate licence.
Last time I checked, I don't need.NET for anything, so I feel no reason whatsoever to use any development platform that Microsoft has any influence over. Microsoft can go get fucked.
If you believe that human-created carbon dioxide contributes, to global warming, as Muller does, then you are one of the 97% of scientists who believe the standard doctrine.
You're an idiot. See? I can insult you too. Actually, I've been watching you for a while on Slashdot, and you don't say anything sensible.
Do you feel better? My point was, that there is no consensus on what should be done about climate change. You got caught up on a stupid argument on whether one scientist says coal should be phased out by 2030 or immediately. You proved that right, good job, but it's a side issue. You completely missed the major point.
I don't see what's so "unthinkable" about it; Microsoft has been pretty honest and well-behaved when it comes to.NET since the start:
Because it's completely a reversed position from what they had before. See the "halloween letters" for example. It took a long time for the Open Source virus to infect Microsoft, but it's there now.
Like I said, you have not the slightest clue what you are talking about.
Like I said, you sound just like those smug Java developers years ago.
And now you probably think that people can't use Java because of lawsuit/licensing threats. Of course, you are wrong again.
Those are mostly crap studies, with narrowly defined questions that even skeptical scientists will agree with (questions like, "Does human influence have some effect on the climate?"). Here's a much better study with a nuanced approach, for those who actually want to understand the issue.
No, using strongly worded but very general hyperbole is not the same as supporting very specific policy ideas like immediately stopping the use of coal. He supports phasing it out by 2030. Stop failing so hard.
I don't need to use hyperbole lol, his actual statements are extreme enough.
The actual point is that there is no consensus on how to address AGW. I hope you didn't miss that point while you were attacking a strawman.
Yeah, notice that it's an actual license, with legal weight, not some kind of novel legal concept that has never been tried in court.
You're better off with the license, legally speaking, than some vague 'promise.' Note also, if you read the actual 'covenant not to sue', it has loopholes. They can still sue you, or they can change the terms at any time.
No. You have no idea what you are talking about. Microsoft's "promise" carries considerable legal weight and cannot be undone by a new CEO on a whim.
What legal cases have addressed this question before? The real truth is you have no clue what you are talking about, because 'promises' not to sue are paper thin.
A good lawyer can always find a way around 'promises'.
No, you are wrong. Oracle v Google has nothing to do with whether Java is a proprietary language, because it is not addressing whether languages are copyrightable (only the APIs).
And if you're thinking that the APIs are a critical part of the language and thus should be included in your sloppilly worded sentence, then you're still wrong: Java is licensed under the GPL, and Google's problem is entirely that they didn't release their implementation under the GPL (which they've changed now, and thus will continue to use Java freely even if they lose the lawsuit).
Hansen wrote, quote, "coal is the single greatest threat to civilization and all life on our planet." He said, "The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death. They need to be shut down."
Hansen pretty clearly wants CO2 emissions to be reduced so much that CO2 levels drop, not remain level.
He wrote, quote, "coal is the single greatest threat to civilization and all life on our planet." He said, "The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death. They need to be shut down." He wants to reduce the CO2, not stop its increase.
You couldn't find something said by someone in 5 seconds in Google, and conclude it wasn't said? Do you also think the universe disappears if you close your eyes?
Slashdot Mirror
You can read the transcript of the conversation here. Like many things related to Trump, it's a confusing and vague conversation, that allows you to draw your own conclusions.
This is hyperbole and untrue. I've never heard anyone suggest anything remotely like this for reasonable criticisms.
Your problem is hilighted there. You should fix that cognitive bias and see more clearly.
Mr. Muller was willing, at the beginning of his research we are discussing, to consider the possibility that human-created carbon dioxide contributes to global warming. Is that a problem for you?
The problem is that you are misrepresenting his statements, probably on purpose. He fully believed that human-created CO2 contributes to AGW.
All I can say is: that's a mean pun.
I'm not concerned lol. I merely pointed out that Java and C# are protected by similar licenses, although you didn't know it. For some reason you were expressing your concern about Java.
.NET is a fine platform. The reason I choose not to use it is so I can avoid working with incompetent programmers.
Also, I think that C# is an excellent language overall, and
This is why open source licences are so important. OS projects need to protect themselves from exploitation, and companies need to signal their commitment with an appropriate licence.
Yup.
Last time I checked, I don't need .NET for anything, so I feel no reason whatsoever to use any development platform that Microsoft has any influence over. Microsoft can go get fucked.
You can say that again.
Furthermore, what objectionable things has Microsoft done over the last decade?
Really?
Basically, if you trust your soul to a proprietary company, you will lose your soul. Because they only care about your money, and that's all.
If you believe that human-created carbon dioxide contributes, to global warming, as Muller does, then you are one of the 97% of scientists who believe the standard doctrine.
You're an idiot. See? I can insult you too. Actually, I've been watching you for a while on Slashdot, and you don't say anything sensible.
Do you feel better? My point was, that there is no consensus on what should be done about climate change. You got caught up on a stupid argument on whether one scientist says coal should be phased out by 2030 or immediately. You proved that right, good job, but it's a side issue. You completely missed the major point.
At least you showed you can read licenses. So good job.
You probably read the word 'estoppel' on a blog somewhere, and haven't even read the licensing for C#.
.net,, except it's an actual license, not a 'promise.'
Anyway, I thought I linked to this earlier, but it was on another thread. Java is covered by the same kind of 'promise' as
I don't see what's so "unthinkable" about it; Microsoft has been pretty honest and well-behaved when it comes to .NET since the start:
Because it's completely a reversed position from what they had before. See the "halloween letters" for example. It took a long time for the Open Source virus to infect Microsoft, but it's there now.
I can assure you I will not be starting any new projects in C#, or Java, for that matter.
It's not always my choice, though.
Like I said, you have not the slightest clue what you are talking about.
Like I said, you sound just like those smug Java developers years ago.
And now you probably think that people can't use Java because of lawsuit/licensing threats. Of course, you are wrong again.
Those are mostly crap studies, with narrowly defined questions that even skeptical scientists will agree with (questions like, "Does human influence have some effect on the climate?"). Here's a much better study with a nuanced approach, for those who actually want to understand the issue.
Nah, the same kinds of arguments you're making here are the ones Java programmers made a decade ago.
And those Java programmers sounded just as smug as you do now. Look where that got them.
No, using strongly worded but very general hyperbole is not the same as supporting very specific policy ideas like immediately stopping the use of coal. He supports phasing it out by 2030. Stop failing so hard.
I don't need to use hyperbole lol, his actual statements are extreme enough.
The actual point is that there is no consensus on how to address AGW. I hope you didn't miss that point while you were attacking a strawman.
Yeah, notice that it's an actual license, with legal weight, not some kind of novel legal concept that has never been tried in court.
You're better off with the license, legally speaking, than some vague 'promise.' Note also, if you read the actual 'covenant not to sue', it has loopholes. They can still sue you, or they can change the terms at any time.
Sun never offerred Java users any protection
Yes they did.
I don't believe Java is protected by anything akin to Microsoft's legally-binding Community/Open Specification Promises (covenant not to sue)
Check it
No. You have no idea what you are talking about. Microsoft's "promise" carries considerable legal weight and cannot be undone by a new CEO on a whim.
What legal cases have addressed this question before? The real truth is you have no clue what you are talking about, because 'promises' not to sue are paper thin.
A good lawyer can always find a way around 'promises'.
No, you are wrong. Oracle v Google has nothing to do with whether Java is a proprietary language, because it is not addressing whether languages are copyrightable (only the APIs).
And if you're thinking that the APIs are a critical part of the language and thus should be included in your sloppilly worded sentence, then you're still wrong: Java is licensed under the GPL, and Google's problem is entirely that they didn't release their implementation under the GPL (which they've changed now, and thus will continue to use Java freely even if they lose the lawsuit).
Hansen wrote, quote, "coal is the single greatest threat to civilization and all life on our planet." He said, "The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death. They need to be shut down."
Hansen pretty clearly wants CO2 emissions to be reduced so much that CO2 levels drop, not remain level.
He wrote, quote, "coal is the single greatest threat to civilization and all life on our planet." He said, "The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death. They need to be shut down." He wants to reduce the CO2, not stop its increase.
Five seconds with Google shows you lied
You couldn't find something said by someone in 5 seconds in Google, and conclude it wasn't said? Do you also think the universe disappears if you close your eyes?