Most open source code is a produced by a sole developer. There are way ore calls for programmers to join projects than there are programmers interested in joining projects.
And even where there are multiple programmers, they tend to find their own specialist areas of the code that are probably never looked at by anyone else.
No, it's not that *I* necessarily need to see the code (while I appreciate the freedom that I could), but I know other people *can* and *do*
No, you only know that they can, not that they do. Nor do you know that even if they do, would they recognise the few lines of code that are performing a malware task. Code review is slow and tiring.
Also, popularity may play a role. Some metrics have Android as the most popular smartphone OS, which makes it the most enticing target for malware authors. Same reason Windows is the most virus-prone desktop OS. (Well, one of the reasons, anyway)
If that were true then the malware for iOS vs Android would be in proportion to the apps for the two platforms. i.e. More for iOS than Android.
But there's no malware for iOS.
As to the market share. Considering just phones, iPhone was ahead until about a year ago. Then Android moved ahead. Then this last quarter, iPhone has regained it's lead.
Considering all iOS devices vs Android,it's not clear that Android passed iOS at any stage.
As I said, I'm from the UK, and I accept that the timing varied.
OK,consider another example. Intelligent Design. There is no doubt that evolution is true. And yet the objective of the ID crowd is "to teach the controversy". To have evolution and creation debated in schools as if they were equal possibilities. Entertaining that ambition is counterproductive. Kids need to be taught evolution.
AGW is no different. There is no doubt. And no succour should be given to the deniers by entertaining their desire to debate the same points they've been shown to be wrong on time and time again.
In my opinion we are still about ten years away from educating the general public, and the only way to educate the average joe is to drive the point home over and over with facts and even further evidence just like we did with tobacco carcinogens.
No really, the general public don't follow the detail of arguments. If people are debating they just think it's something for which there isn't a correct answer, only opinions.
The message needs to be given that the there is no doubt that AGW is happening. As indeed there is o doubt. The debate now needs to be exclusively about what to do about global warming.
The science was clearly in the 60s, the average populace came around only in the 80s.
The timing probably varied from country to country. The public didn't have such easy ways to know what other countries were thinking in those days. Certainly in the 1970s when I was a kid, we knew smoking caused cancer. And we knew that because we were told it as a matter of fact. Although (I know now) the tobacco companies and their employed shills were still denying it, their arguments were not being entertained, at least in the UK.
Except spammers and phishers will still spoof because there are corrupt ISPs and corrupt people who work for ISPs who'd generate accounts, and lots of people who'd willingly be paid to sign up for accounts to be used by spammers, and lots of people who'd unwittingly be signed up by spammers via botnets, trojans etc
When messages are not possible to spoof they are traceable, and all these things are then policeable.
So your measures wouldn't work but they'd certainly have a massive chilling effect on free expression on the internet. Lots of people appreciate being able to separate their real life from their online life yet all that would be toast.
Not at all. Just because email could replaced with something better that is traceable doesn't mean forums and blogs disappear. Nor does it mean that other anonymous message systems can't exist for the minority that need that.
It just means that the majority of wanted email traffic, which is legitimate messages and attachments, from people and companies known to each other, isn't littered with spam, malware and fishing attempts.
There is no down side to this. It's just difficult to make it happen because of the network effect. (Until the vast majority of ISPs and users use it, it doesn't have value as the primary messaging system.)
The one point of agreement we have is that hemp is a useful crop. Indeed I had it in mind when I posted about there being lots of alternatives to fossil fuel based plastic.
Other than that, you're completely wrong:
It's far more efficient to recycle those metals than get them fro ore. "Recycling involves melting the scrap, a process that requires only 5% of the energy used to produce aluminium from ore" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium
And mixed buildings are far more efficient than separating homes, industry and commerce. Building land wise it obviously makes no difference. The footprint of buildings is the same where ever you build them. But there are so many efficiencies of mixing them up. e.g. Build houses near industry and you get free heating from industrial processes. Heat that all too often is otherwise thrown away. And obviously if people live close to where they work, there's far less traffic on the roads, which both saves energy, and makes the world more pleasant.
In a green economy bus drivers wouldn't lose their jobs. There'd be more busses. Close to work doesn't always mean walking distance. And there are plenty more reasons for travel than just work.
Perhaps. But I do know how to read a graph, and your graph agrees with what I said. No significant warming has occurred since 1998. The "getting hotter" stopped, but the "increasing CO2" did not. This is becoming a little awkward.
In fact you were so quick to dismiss the OP that you missed the fact that the dude was pro-GW.
I didn't respond to the OP at all. I responded to you.
It's not too early to give up on public debate. 20 years ago was too early. Now it isn't. There is no doubt it's happening, and that it's anthropogenic. At this stage the only one's arguing the contrary are those that are arguing from a political point of view, and those that are paid to do so. Kind of like those who were still denying from the 1960s onwards that tobacco smoke was a carcinogen.
Not by themselves, no. Sunlight. Body heat. Waste heat from computers and other appliances. Waste heat from cooking. etc. They can build buildings where the thermal loss is so low you don't need any dedicated heating. It's not theory, they exist. People live in them.
The hockey stick has plateaued. We were told that the temperatures would continue to drastically rise as the CO2 did. But they have not continued to rise at all since 1997. How do climate scientists explain that?
Thesaurus's list words with related meanings, not the same definition. This is patently obvious from the list you give. For example "certainty" is obviously not the same thing as "guess".
Not really. If someone starts proclaiming creationism or flat-earthism, then it's pointless debating them. In fact you're actually humouring them by doing so, and giving them and others the impression that there's actually a legitimate debate to be had, when there isn't.
At this point the right wing propaganda machine is trying to push the idea that there is still a debate to be had, when there isn't one. That's why it's a mistake to answer these long since debunked as if they had some validity. It gives the propagandists what they want - the false impression that there are still two equally probable sides to this.
It's much the same as there being no point in debating creationists or flat-earthers.
Two responses and one with fucked up formatting. Are you rattled?
I'm glad you find your gender swapping amusing, I certainly do.
No there's no question that knowledge is only knowledge i gained years ago. But some cherry picked data that only becomes true if you pick the right selection of years, such that 4 years matter, has nothing to do with climate trends. Climate trends are over at least 30 years. I'm reminded that in 2010 ish, it became possible for deniers to claim that the temperature trend was down. If you considered a period of just 10 years. And drew a straight line through the first and last point. And of course the following year that possibility broke down again.
But we're done all this before. You pop up every time theres a GW thread on Slashdot, with the same old shit. And after the first two rounds of me proving you wrong, only for you to repeat the same shit the next time, it became obvious you're not honest.
You're a freak who lies about his politics, his gender, and posts stuff on global warming that he knows is false.
You're a man who likes to pretend to be a woman in the internet. In a similar way to how you're a right wing man who likes to pretend he's not.
Also, your reference is to a paper that is over 2 years old, which references data that is 2 years older yet. But now, 4 years later, we happen to know a bit more. Imagine that.
If your reference relies on what happened in the last 4 years, then it's got fuck all to do with climate trends.
Slashdot Mirror
Most open source code is a produced by a sole developer. There are way ore calls for programmers to join projects than there are programmers interested in joining projects.
And even where there are multiple programmers, they tend to find their own specialist areas of the code that are probably never looked at by anyone else.
The idea that "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow" is a fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus'_Law
That's interesting. You wanted me to go away. And yet here you are tracking me down in another thread. Glutton for punishment are you?
The only people who say "there is no doubt" are the True Believers.
You're saying there's doubt that species evolve? Then that places you amongst the Intelligent Designers, not I. I can't say I'm too surprised.
Perhaps you also doubt that tobacco smoke is carcinogenic. These two denials do tend to lie in an unholy triangle with AGW denial.
I won't stand idle while you preach to innocent people your distorted view of the real picture surrounding AGW.
That's funny because that's the reason I always call you out on your AGW denial bullshit.
No, it's not that *I* necessarily need to see the code (while I appreciate the freedom that I could), but I know other people *can* and *do*
No, you only know that they can, not that they do. Nor do you know that even if they do, would they recognise the few lines of code that are performing a malware task. Code review is slow and tiring.
Also, popularity may play a role. Some metrics have Android as the most popular smartphone OS, which makes it the most enticing target for malware authors. Same reason Windows is the most virus-prone desktop OS. (Well, one of the reasons, anyway)
If that were true then the malware for iOS vs Android would be in proportion to the apps for the two platforms. i.e. More for iOS than Android.
But there's no malware for iOS.
As to the market share. Considering just phones, iPhone was ahead until about a year ago. Then Android moved ahead. Then this last quarter, iPhone has regained it's lead.
Considering all iOS devices vs Android,it's not clear that Android passed iOS at any stage.
Buy an iPhone, not an Android.
What's forex got to do with it? Forex identifies the US currency as USD instead of $.
As I said, I'm from the UK, and I accept that the timing varied.
OK,consider another example. Intelligent Design. There is no doubt that evolution is true. And yet the objective of the ID crowd is "to teach the controversy". To have evolution and creation debated in schools as if they were equal possibilities. Entertaining that ambition is counterproductive. Kids need to be taught evolution.
AGW is no different. There is no doubt. And no succour should be given to the deniers by entertaining their desire to debate the same points they've been shown to be wrong on time and time again.
Oooh... look! A third reply! Wow. I must be really, really rattled, eh?
It appears so. I don't think I've ever seen 3 replies to a message from one person before.
Okay, bud.
Easy now fella. Next, you'll be slapping me on the back, offing me a beer and asking if I've seen the game.
In my opinion we are still about ten years away from educating the general public, and the only way to educate the average joe is to drive the point home over and over with facts and even further evidence just like we did with tobacco carcinogens.
No really, the general public don't follow the detail of arguments. If people are debating they just think it's something for which there isn't a correct answer, only opinions.
The message needs to be given that the there is no doubt that AGW is happening. As indeed there is o doubt. The debate now needs to be exclusively about what to do about global warming.
The science was clearly in the 60s, the average populace came around only in the 80s.
The timing probably varied from country to country. The public didn't have such easy ways to know what other countries were thinking in those days. Certainly in the 1970s when I was a kid, we knew smoking caused cancer. And we knew that because we were told it as a matter of fact. Although (I know now) the tobacco companies and their employed shills were still denying it, their arguments were not being entertained, at least in the UK.
Except spammers and phishers will still spoof because there are corrupt ISPs and corrupt people who work for ISPs who'd generate accounts, and lots of people who'd willingly be paid to sign up for accounts to be used by spammers, and lots of people who'd unwittingly be signed up by spammers via botnets, trojans etc
When messages are not possible to spoof they are traceable, and all these things are then policeable.
So your measures wouldn't work but they'd certainly have a massive chilling effect on free expression on the internet. Lots of people appreciate being able to separate their real life from their online life yet all that would be toast.
Not at all. Just because email could replaced with something better that is traceable doesn't mean forums and blogs disappear. Nor does it mean that other anonymous message systems can't exist for the minority that need that.
It just means that the majority of wanted email traffic, which is legitimate messages and attachments, from people and companies known to each other, isn't littered with spam, malware and fishing attempts.
There is no down side to this. It's just difficult to make it happen because of the network effect. (Until the vast majority of ISPs and users use it, it doesn't have value as the primary messaging system.)
The one point of agreement we have is that hemp is a useful crop. Indeed I had it in mind when I posted about there being lots of alternatives to fossil fuel based plastic.
Other than that, you're completely wrong:
It's far more efficient to recycle those metals than get them fro ore.
"Recycling involves melting the scrap, a process that requires only 5% of the energy used to produce aluminium from ore"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium
And mixed buildings are far more efficient than separating homes, industry and commerce. Building land wise it obviously makes no difference. The footprint of buildings is the same where ever you build them. But there are so many efficiencies of mixing them up. e.g. Build houses near industry and you get free heating from industrial processes. Heat that all too often is otherwise thrown away. And obviously if people live close to where they work, there's far less traffic on the roads, which both saves energy, and makes the world more pleasant.
In a green economy bus drivers wouldn't lose their jobs. There'd be more busses. Close to work doesn't always mean walking distance. And there are plenty more reasons for travel than just work.
"You're an ignorant moron."
Perhaps. But I do know how to read a graph, and your graph agrees with what I said. No significant warming has occurred since 1998. The "getting hotter" stopped, but the "increasing CO2" did not. This is becoming a little awkward.
You're an ignorant moron who can't read a graph.
In fact you were so quick to dismiss the OP that you missed the fact that the dude was pro-GW.
I didn't respond to the OP at all. I responded to you.
It's not too early to give up on public debate. 20 years ago was too early. Now it isn't. There is no doubt it's happening, and that it's anthropogenic. At this stage the only one's arguing the contrary are those that are arguing from a political point of view, and those that are paid to do so. Kind of like those who were still denying from the 1960s onwards that tobacco smoke was a carcinogen.
Not by themselves, no. Sunlight. Body heat. Waste heat from computers and other appliances. Waste heat from cooking. etc. They can build buildings where the thermal loss is so low you don't need any dedicated heating. It's not theory, they exist. People live in them.
The hockey stick has plateaued. We were told that the temperatures would continue to drastically rise as the CO2 did. But they have not continued to rise at all since 1997. How do climate scientists explain that?
You're an ignorant moron.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly_1880-2010_(Fig.A).gif
Thesaurus's list words with related meanings, not the same definition. This is patently obvious from the list you give. For example "certainty" is obviously not the same thing as "guess".
Right, yeah. The number of scientists backing evolution and gravity obviously calls them into question.
Not really. If someone starts proclaiming creationism or flat-earthism, then it's pointless debating them. In fact you're actually humouring them by doing so, and giving them and others the impression that there's actually a legitimate debate to be had, when there isn't.
This is no different.
Thank you for that post. I fear you're right that most people won't read it because it's too long. And that's a shame.
At this point the right wing propaganda machine is trying to push the idea that there is still a debate to be had, when there isn't one. That's why it's a mistake to answer these long since debunked as if they had some validity. It gives the propagandists what they want - the false impression that there are still two equally probable sides to this.
It's much the same as there being no point in debating creationists or flat-earthers.
Ah, way to address the details. Excellent!
Details: pixie dust and rainbows, according to you. Hypocrite.
Two responses and one with fucked up formatting. Are you rattled?
I'm glad you find your gender swapping amusing, I certainly do.
No there's no question that knowledge is only knowledge i gained years ago. But some cherry picked data that only becomes true if you pick the right selection of years, such that 4 years matter, has nothing to do with climate trends. Climate trends are over at least 30 years. I'm reminded that in 2010 ish, it became possible for deniers to claim that the temperature trend was down. If you considered a period of just 10 years. And drew a straight line through the first and last point. And of course the following year that possibility broke down again.
But we're done all this before. You pop up every time theres a GW thread on Slashdot, with the same old shit. And after the first two rounds of me proving you wrong, only for you to repeat the same shit the next time, it became obvious you're not honest.
You're a freak who lies about his politics, his gender, and posts stuff on global warming that he knows is false.
It's hard to comment unless you say where it is you live. But there are such houses in Canada for example. And more so in Scandinavian countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_building
But the concept is still valid even if in the coldest of places some additional heating is required. It still means, globally, a vast reduction.
First, I am not "right-wing".
You're a man who likes to pretend to be a woman in the internet. In a similar way to how you're a right wing man who likes to pretend he's not.
Also, your reference is to a paper that is over 2 years old, which references data that is 2 years older yet. But now, 4 years later, we happen to know a bit more. Imagine that.
If your reference relies on what happened in the last 4 years, then it's got fuck all to do with climate trends.
Sure you watch Fox News. Your entire presence on Slashdot is to churn out right-wing propaganda. You don't comment on anything else.
And you come out with the same hurricane shit every time there's a global warming thread in Slashdot.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/extreme-weather-global-warming.htm