I plug into my computer even though I have a wall adapter that charges roughly 5 times faster. My phone's battery lasts 4-6 years instead of 1 before losing over 50% of its capacity.
I've written more Perl than I've written Python, but it was mostly in 2002 when Perl was still relevant. I've written more perl than I've written Awk and Bash and I use Awk extensively in my career as a Unix sysadmin.
It's a shitty language. Perl is full of mature networking modules, ORM frameworks, and other extensions that are absolute garbage despite being in active development for years. It's hard to write good code in perl--so hard that absolute veterans had to inform me of this, since I've only done a handful of mid-size projects in Perl amounting to maybe 30 or 40 thousand lines of code and not the hundreds of KLOC that some of these folks have been through over years.
You know what's funny about really good, highly experienced perl programmers? They complain about how shitty perl is, and especially how shitty other perl programmers are with stuff like "if $a && $b || $c {... }" talking about how "it's well understood how that works, you don't need parenthesis." It's as much coding style as weird sigil bullshit and slow-as-fucking-balls precompilation, not to mention innocuous code sometimes causing Perl to lose track of its symbol table (so when you 'use MODULE' it works early on, but suddenly the functions aren't callable from the same code blocks later) and the piles and piles of absolute shit like DBIx.
This is hilarious bullshit. Perl is slow, clunky, buggy, and idiotic in many ways. I've had perl scripts that started with 'exit 1;' take several seconds to run: the whole file gets compiled at once; Python incrementally compiles, with a fast syntax check first. Perl and Python both compile to bytecode, not JIT; any feature slow in Python (regex etc) is a legitimate concern, but can be handled by rewriting the back-end library.
"Perl is faster because it was made for this" is stupid. "Perl is faster because nobody has bothered to optimize the relevant code in Python/Ruby/Mono/etc" is sensible, and time sensitive: eventually somebody will bother to do that.
I was specifically pointing out schoolgirls who would be underaged. 19 year olds dressed up like 14 year olds. Oh, this is so naughty, don't tell my mother, blahblahblah... oh it's so big... should we really be doing this... etc etc. You won't tell daddy I didn't do my homework will you yadda yadda.
And yes, the statistics around this are a hell of a lot of "say something, anything" bullshit. The whole thing is so extremely taboo that you can't discuss the issue without people giving you looks, you can't comment on the statistics, or track the raids, or be interested in it as a cause; all you can do is join in the Two Minutes' Hate when Emmanual Childfuckstein shows up on the projection screen, then stop talking about him. It's not supposed to be an issue you seriously take a causal interest in.
We like the feel-good measures. We "rescued 380 children" last week by finding people associated with a nudist site that had pics of naked kids. The news articles collectively indicate that about 14 children in India were "identified" (not rescued), and that a bunch of teachers and such were removed from schools. In general, the conclusion by the online community is that 380 children were under the purview of teachers who might be into kiddy porn, and so "we rescued 380 children!" In other words: no actual children who were being abused have ceased being abused.
The actual act of censoring child pornography is highly disturbing in itself. If we're assuming that people who have an internal thought and interest in children sexually are a threat, and thus making child pornography illegal, then we have two problems. The first problem is we're trying to punish thought-crime: child pornography isn't illegal because it's harmful, but rather because we want to punish people for having these thoughts we find personally disturbing. The second problem is we're completely incapable of pursuing enforcement against persons who we've deemed dangerous (for their thoughts), until they take some kind of action.
That second problem is exacerbated by one questionable hypothesis: with the pornography outlet blocked by being as risky if not riskier than sex, will these people express by child abuse? If they're trying to find satiation and weighing risk, it's obvious that your Internet can be invisibly monitored (and thus is extremely risky) while you can at least manipulate and control children if you can get them to keep secrets (thus the spread of information is slow, if not controllable--and it's absolutely more controllable than the monitoring of your Internet activity). So it's much better to have actual sex with children than to search for child pornography at this point: it's safer.
The above hypothesis is questionable for two reasons. First: we know that exposure to pornography and other visual effects provides comfort. People start looking at perverse stuff online, then they start watching gay porn, they move to bath houses and start experimenting with homosexuality... it happens, it's a common pattern, and a lot of straight men (and women) have experimented with homosexuality or bondage or whatnot by the cycle of introduction (initial thought or suggestion), curiosity, exposure, and then action. Thus we have another questionable hypothesis: that watching child pornography may acclimate a person to action, leading to actual child sex interactions.
Another problem: action may come in different forms. Wired ran an article about online sex roleplay services, including everything from vanilla stuff to furry MUCKs (hilarity ensued: apparently a lot of not-furries got on furry sex mucks and were culture shocked). Common sexual exploration includes everything from furry fandom to group sex to, yes, underage roleplay. There are also real-world analogues of this: people actually roleplay scenarios, everything from teacher-student (college) to maids to rape play, up to and including finding young (18-20) and/or young-looking girls who can dress up as even younger girls. Schoolgirl roleplay is common; I've even known a number of girls who, in a nutshell, had the body of a thirteen year old when they were 25-ish--they could dress enough to look young-20s, but if you threw one in jeans and a t-shirt and tennis shoes you would swear she's got to be 12, *maybe* 13. That means there are many perfectly legal ways to act on these fantasies directly.
So we have a complicated net of censorship, inaction, thoughtcrime, opposing psychological theories on whether outlets help or lead to bigger crimes, and outlets that are physical but provide a harmless mechanism of action. We could also get into some social considerations like the abridged rights of minors and the philosophical concern of this whole age-of-majority thing: apparently minors don't
Well it's the same reasoning behind executing the dog... vet costs are too high, throw it away. It's the same logic for getting a new car over a current aging one, though usually a new car has a premium that's way more than just fixing up your car (you buy a $20,000 econoshitbox, it loses $6000 in value as soon as you drive off the lot, and eats $5000 in maintenance in the first 2 years... $1500 replaces a transmission and $2500 replaces or rebuilds an engine, so like $4000 is a way better deal here and leaves plenty of room to redo the suspension or something).
There could be life forms as far advanced beyond ourselves as we are beyond the clam elsewhere in this universe
They did this on Stargate, where aliens argued they were so advanced that we were to them as cattle are to us. The obvious counter-argument is that a cow cannot competently verbally spar with me, it has no sapience, etc. If you were to "learn the language of cows", you would be able to communicate exactly as well as you can with a dog, or less--dogs don't understand human speech, more body language cues and the occasional grunt (that's why they pick up on certain words, but can't understand long and complex sentences).
You might not be able to understand wtf aliens are talking about, but you can sure hold a conversation with one. It would be bland for them. Our level of evolution is not the end of all evolution, but it's pretty fucking high up there: we can comprehend math and logic.
Yeah dude. Animals have souls, that makes them alive. The lack of a neural network capable of processing self-awareness doesn't make them incapable. It's like how trees feel pain and get scared and want to hug their mommy. The Lorax should speak for the clams, too.
Why don't we execute old people too? I mean it's like... grandma is old... she shits her diaper a lot... she can't remember any of her kids... you know, when my dog started pissing on the floor because his bladder was failing, we gassed it with sulfur dioxide until it died, then put it in a bag and dumped it in a dumpster. Grandma is expensive and way worse off than my dog was. Why don't we relieve the burden on the taxpayer?
Who cares about it being so damned old? What is with peoples' obsession with old shit? Old people? Old people should be executed. Why just last week I had an old people jump in front of me at a buffet, shove me clean out of the way they did. I told them, "Hey, you get back in the line like everyone else!" And they had the guile to complain that they're old and "don't have as much time" and some bullshit. I told them that's all the better reason they should wait their fucking turn, because maybe they'll die before they get there and leave more food for the rest of us.
If they were clams I would have subjected them to intense heat and butter sauce.
No you couldn't. The rings are shaped exactly so based on what happens while they're forming; they're not shaped based on a biological pattern inherent in the clam and executed in isolation from the environment.
"If the money is traceable, it's traceable" - but without anti-money laundering laws, it would all be untraceable.
I've laundered money before, successfully. It was pretty easy. When I was 19 I started an illegal gambling business, brought in tons of cash, and reported about 20% of it on my taxes. I deducted the pay-outs from the take and then only reported the difference as income. Reasonable amounts of money were moving in and out of other peoples' accounts where they had regular cash withdrawals and deposits, so extra money could be added to the deposit pile and checks written. We all constantly filed a loss on that money, while bringing in tons of profit; in one case I made $4000 profit in one year from one machine in a tiny deli, and the reporting on that money showed as a $3000 loss and got the IRS to include an extra $1000 cheque in my tax refund.
You seem to be missing the connection that the money laundering laws are what contain the regulations forcing reporting limit in the first place.
If the Government wants to know if you ever deposited $10,000 or $100,000 in cash in the bank one day out of nowhere, the mandatory reporting law should state thus:
By Decree of the Congress of the United States of America, it is Mandatory that any Law Enforcement Agency desiring a Report on any Financial Activity by any Citizen of the United States of America must apply for said Report with a Court-endorsed Warrant only to be granted with Just Cause. No Institution, Individual, or Group shall reveal any information such that they have been entrusted to on any Financial Activity engaged in by any Citizen of the United States without force of such a Warrant.
Short version: Spying on people who have not been accused of crimes should be illegal. Banks reporting on financial activity without being subpoenaed with a warrant should be drawn up on criminal charges.
Uh, no. If you are guilty of robbing a bank, you are guilty of robbing a bank. If you are guilty of selling drugs, you are guilty of selling drugs. If the money is traceable, it's traceable.
Money laundering laws make it a separate crime to, say, allow someone to deposit $10,000 in a bank, or $5000 and $5000, or $9950 but "it looks like they're trying to come just under the mandatory reporting limit", without reporting it. It makes it illegal and/or difficult to carry around thousands of dollars of cash on hand at once. It subjects you to reporting your private accounts in some situations.
Here's a hint: Laundering actually happens. Laundering happens and the money gets lost and the fed can't seize it. If you're convicted of making $5 million in drug sales, and you have $5 million, the police will basically take that because, hey, mystery drug money found.
No, it means getting rid of stuff like mandatory reporting of transactions over $10,000. Meanwhile your employer would still be required to report your income; you'd still be required to file taxes; etc. It's just that suddenly "suspicious transactions" don't need to go to the Fed, suddenly you're not going to be detained for having $10,000 in cash on hand, etc.
That effect is called "X, but more slowly." For example: Nuclear explosion, bad. Nuclear explosion, but more slowly, awesome. Rapidly boiling ammonia, bad. Evaporating ammonia with a high partial pressure, good.
I was thinking about writing a JavaScript to CIL to use Mono to back JS: the engine would produce CIL that loads into a CIL runtime, along with a support library that connects to the DOM. Then: WEBCIL-Python.
Flu deaths are excellent. They cull the elderly off social security and medicare and cull the weak children out of our gene pool. Still waiting for a disease that selectively targets the stupid and the criminally insane.
The hilarious thing about SARS and MERS and H1N1 Swineflu is they're so ridiculously impotent. SARS will fucking kill you!... it infected 8,000 people over like 15 years. H1N1 Swineflu infected 30,000 people in its peak run over 3 years--you know, when they then decided vaccines were bad for you--and killed very few. That same year, H3N5 and whatnot infected tens of millions and killed hundreds of thousands. H1N1 Bristol did about the same. The vaccination for H1N1 Swineflu was available separate for marketing purposes; but if you got a flu shot, you got H1N1 vaccine that year.
First, infra-red isn't created when visible light hits things, and CO2 isn't opaque to infra-red. Christ you're as dumb as a bloke I know who insists greenhouses work by concentrating infra-red because IR doesn't pass through glass and glass converts visible light to IR.
Fact 1: IR is not visible. The sun is a black body emitter; most of its energy (over 90%) is IR to begin with. In other words: it's 10 times brighter in IR than it is in Visible light.
Fact 2: Visible light isn't converted to IR when it hits things. Visible light is absorbed by an electron, which raises to a higher energy state, causing it to increase its distance from the nucleus of an atom. It then returns to its original energy state; the distance it moves in this return is the wavelength of the photon emitted when it returns to its base state. Photons outside this wavelength will be less effectively absorbed; fluorescent materials absorb them effectively, so rather than getting hot they glow brightly. Thus a portion of the energy from light is converted to heat, which radiates as IR; most of the energy from visible light reflects as visible light.
CO2 is not "opaque" to infra red. The chemical bonds in CO2 deflect slightly, causing vibration when exposed to infra red. This vibration causes the molecules to move apart, making them less dense; this creates a convection effect whereby the heated molecules move upwards in the atmosphere, transferring energy to higher-atmosphere gasses and away from the earth.
The reason the lower atmosphere is heating faster is because the upper atmosphere is radiating heat effectively--the air is thin and IR can travel further without hitting things, right until the edge of space where it just leaves--while the lower atmosphere is releasing heat that has been stored in the ocean.
Anyway you're a retard with no reading comprehension and no understanding of science outside fanciful and inaccurate grade school fairytales. I bet you even believe greenhouses work because glass blocks infra-red radiation--which is hilarious when you consider that the EPA recommends applying infra-red blocking film to south-facing windows to block up to 80% of incoming heat from sunlight and people still believe glass blocks IR.
This is American news. Over in Europe, most governments have been looking into the impacts of long-term global cooling for the past decade. Or so says that liberal hard-on machine Slate; I'm surprised Fox News hasn't jumped on this, doubly surprised that Republicans are usually the ones to call bullshit on the modern global cooling theory and immediately start spouting about how global warming is a well-established scientific fact. It's like the political ideologists can't keep straight what side of which issue they're on.
Slashdot Mirror
I plug into my computer even though I have a wall adapter that charges roughly 5 times faster. My phone's battery lasts 4-6 years instead of 1 before losing over 50% of its capacity.
I've written more Perl than I've written Python, but it was mostly in 2002 when Perl was still relevant. I've written more perl than I've written Awk and Bash and I use Awk extensively in my career as a Unix sysadmin.
It's a shitty language. Perl is full of mature networking modules, ORM frameworks, and other extensions that are absolute garbage despite being in active development for years. It's hard to write good code in perl--so hard that absolute veterans had to inform me of this, since I've only done a handful of mid-size projects in Perl amounting to maybe 30 or 40 thousand lines of code and not the hundreds of KLOC that some of these folks have been through over years.
You know what's funny about really good, highly experienced perl programmers? They complain about how shitty perl is, and especially how shitty other perl programmers are with stuff like "if $a && $b || $c { ... }" talking about how "it's well understood how that works, you don't need parenthesis." It's as much coding style as weird sigil bullshit and slow-as-fucking-balls precompilation, not to mention innocuous code sometimes causing Perl to lose track of its symbol table (so when you 'use MODULE' it works early on, but suddenly the functions aren't callable from the same code blocks later) and the piles and piles of absolute shit like DBIx.
Redhat is Microsoft. Cannonical is Apple.
This is hilarious bullshit. Perl is slow, clunky, buggy, and idiotic in many ways. I've had perl scripts that started with 'exit 1;' take several seconds to run: the whole file gets compiled at once; Python incrementally compiles, with a fast syntax check first. Perl and Python both compile to bytecode, not JIT; any feature slow in Python (regex etc) is a legitimate concern, but can be handled by rewriting the back-end library.
"Perl is faster because it was made for this" is stupid. "Perl is faster because nobody has bothered to optimize the relevant code in Python/Ruby/Mono/etc" is sensible, and time sensitive: eventually somebody will bother to do that.
A few tips: Python re is better than Perl's regular expressions; and Python RPy directly integrates R.
I was specifically pointing out schoolgirls who would be underaged. 19 year olds dressed up like 14 year olds. Oh, this is so naughty, don't tell my mother, blahblahblah... oh it's so big... should we really be doing this... etc etc. You won't tell daddy I didn't do my homework will you yadda yadda.
And yes, the statistics around this are a hell of a lot of "say something, anything" bullshit. The whole thing is so extremely taboo that you can't discuss the issue without people giving you looks, you can't comment on the statistics, or track the raids, or be interested in it as a cause; all you can do is join in the Two Minutes' Hate when Emmanual Childfuckstein shows up on the projection screen, then stop talking about him. It's not supposed to be an issue you seriously take a causal interest in.
The issue is massively complex.
We like the feel-good measures. We "rescued 380 children" last week by finding people associated with a nudist site that had pics of naked kids. The news articles collectively indicate that about 14 children in India were "identified" (not rescued), and that a bunch of teachers and such were removed from schools. In general, the conclusion by the online community is that 380 children were under the purview of teachers who might be into kiddy porn, and so "we rescued 380 children!" In other words: no actual children who were being abused have ceased being abused.
The actual act of censoring child pornography is highly disturbing in itself. If we're assuming that people who have an internal thought and interest in children sexually are a threat, and thus making child pornography illegal, then we have two problems. The first problem is we're trying to punish thought-crime: child pornography isn't illegal because it's harmful, but rather because we want to punish people for having these thoughts we find personally disturbing. The second problem is we're completely incapable of pursuing enforcement against persons who we've deemed dangerous (for their thoughts), until they take some kind of action.
That second problem is exacerbated by one questionable hypothesis: with the pornography outlet blocked by being as risky if not riskier than sex, will these people express by child abuse? If they're trying to find satiation and weighing risk, it's obvious that your Internet can be invisibly monitored (and thus is extremely risky) while you can at least manipulate and control children if you can get them to keep secrets (thus the spread of information is slow, if not controllable--and it's absolutely more controllable than the monitoring of your Internet activity). So it's much better to have actual sex with children than to search for child pornography at this point: it's safer.
The above hypothesis is questionable for two reasons. First: we know that exposure to pornography and other visual effects provides comfort. People start looking at perverse stuff online, then they start watching gay porn, they move to bath houses and start experimenting with homosexuality... it happens, it's a common pattern, and a lot of straight men (and women) have experimented with homosexuality or bondage or whatnot by the cycle of introduction (initial thought or suggestion), curiosity, exposure, and then action. Thus we have another questionable hypothesis: that watching child pornography may acclimate a person to action, leading to actual child sex interactions.
Another problem: action may come in different forms. Wired ran an article about online sex roleplay services, including everything from vanilla stuff to furry MUCKs (hilarity ensued: apparently a lot of not-furries got on furry sex mucks and were culture shocked). Common sexual exploration includes everything from furry fandom to group sex to, yes, underage roleplay. There are also real-world analogues of this: people actually roleplay scenarios, everything from teacher-student (college) to maids to rape play, up to and including finding young (18-20) and/or young-looking girls who can dress up as even younger girls. Schoolgirl roleplay is common; I've even known a number of girls who, in a nutshell, had the body of a thirteen year old when they were 25-ish--they could dress enough to look young-20s, but if you threw one in jeans and a t-shirt and tennis shoes you would swear she's got to be 12, *maybe* 13. That means there are many perfectly legal ways to act on these fantasies directly.
So we have a complicated net of censorship, inaction, thoughtcrime, opposing psychological theories on whether outlets help or lead to bigger crimes, and outlets that are physical but provide a harmless mechanism of action. We could also get into some social considerations like the abridged rights of minors and the philosophical concern of this whole age-of-majority thing: apparently minors don't
Well it's the same reasoning behind executing the dog... vet costs are too high, throw it away. It's the same logic for getting a new car over a current aging one, though usually a new car has a premium that's way more than just fixing up your car (you buy a $20,000 econoshitbox, it loses $6000 in value as soon as you drive off the lot, and eats $5000 in maintenance in the first 2 years... $1500 replaces a transmission and $2500 replaces or rebuilds an engine, so like $4000 is a way better deal here and leaves plenty of room to redo the suspension or something).
There could be life forms as far advanced beyond ourselves as we are beyond the clam elsewhere in this universe
They did this on Stargate, where aliens argued they were so advanced that we were to them as cattle are to us. The obvious counter-argument is that a cow cannot competently verbally spar with me, it has no sapience, etc. If you were to "learn the language of cows", you would be able to communicate exactly as well as you can with a dog, or less--dogs don't understand human speech, more body language cues and the occasional grunt (that's why they pick up on certain words, but can't understand long and complex sentences).
You might not be able to understand wtf aliens are talking about, but you can sure hold a conversation with one. It would be bland for them. Our level of evolution is not the end of all evolution, but it's pretty fucking high up there: we can comprehend math and logic.
Yeah dude. Animals have souls, that makes them alive. The lack of a neural network capable of processing self-awareness doesn't make them incapable. It's like how trees feel pain and get scared and want to hug their mommy. The Lorax should speak for the clams, too.
Why don't we execute old people too? I mean it's like... grandma is old... she shits her diaper a lot... she can't remember any of her kids... you know, when my dog started pissing on the floor because his bladder was failing, we gassed it with sulfur dioxide until it died, then put it in a bag and dumped it in a dumpster. Grandma is expensive and way worse off than my dog was. Why don't we relieve the burden on the taxpayer?
Who cares about it being so damned old? What is with peoples' obsession with old shit? Old people? Old people should be executed. Why just last week I had an old people jump in front of me at a buffet, shove me clean out of the way they did. I told them, "Hey, you get back in the line like everyone else!" And they had the guile to complain that they're old and "don't have as much time" and some bullshit. I told them that's all the better reason they should wait their fucking turn, because maybe they'll die before they get there and leave more food for the rest of us.
If they were clams I would have subjected them to intense heat and butter sauce.
Oddly Enough, is that you?
No you couldn't. The rings are shaped exactly so based on what happens while they're forming; they're not shaped based on a biological pattern inherent in the clam and executed in isolation from the environment.
"If the money is traceable, it's traceable" - but without anti-money laundering laws, it would all be untraceable.
I've laundered money before, successfully. It was pretty easy. When I was 19 I started an illegal gambling business, brought in tons of cash, and reported about 20% of it on my taxes. I deducted the pay-outs from the take and then only reported the difference as income. Reasonable amounts of money were moving in and out of other peoples' accounts where they had regular cash withdrawals and deposits, so extra money could be added to the deposit pile and checks written. We all constantly filed a loss on that money, while bringing in tons of profit; in one case I made $4000 profit in one year from one machine in a tiny deli, and the reporting on that money showed as a $3000 loss and got the IRS to include an extra $1000 cheque in my tax refund.
You seem to be missing the connection that the money laundering laws are what contain the regulations forcing reporting limit in the first place.
If the Government wants to know if you ever deposited $10,000 or $100,000 in cash in the bank one day out of nowhere, the mandatory reporting law should state thus:
By Decree of the Congress of the United States of America, it is Mandatory that any Law Enforcement Agency desiring a Report on any Financial Activity by any Citizen of the United States of America must apply for said Report with a Court-endorsed Warrant only to be granted with Just Cause. No Institution, Individual, or Group shall reveal any information such that they have been entrusted to on any Financial Activity engaged in by any Citizen of the United States without force of such a Warrant.
Short version: Spying on people who have not been accused of crimes should be illegal. Banks reporting on financial activity without being subpoenaed with a warrant should be drawn up on criminal charges.
Uh, no. If you are guilty of robbing a bank, you are guilty of robbing a bank. If you are guilty of selling drugs, you are guilty of selling drugs. If the money is traceable, it's traceable.
Money laundering laws make it a separate crime to, say, allow someone to deposit $10,000 in a bank, or $5000 and $5000, or $9950 but "it looks like they're trying to come just under the mandatory reporting limit", without reporting it. It makes it illegal and/or difficult to carry around thousands of dollars of cash on hand at once. It subjects you to reporting your private accounts in some situations.
Here's a hint: Laundering actually happens. Laundering happens and the money gets lost and the fed can't seize it. If you're convicted of making $5 million in drug sales, and you have $5 million, the police will basically take that because, hey, mystery drug money found.
No, it means getting rid of stuff like mandatory reporting of transactions over $10,000. Meanwhile your employer would still be required to report your income; you'd still be required to file taxes; etc. It's just that suddenly "suspicious transactions" don't need to go to the Fed, suddenly you're not going to be detained for having $10,000 in cash on hand, etc.
Repeal all the anti-money-laundering laws. Problem solved.
That effect is called "X, but more slowly." For example: Nuclear explosion, bad. Nuclear explosion, but more slowly, awesome. Rapidly boiling ammonia, bad. Evaporating ammonia with a high partial pressure, good.
I was thinking about writing a JavaScript to CIL to use Mono to back JS: the engine would produce CIL that loads into a CIL runtime, along with a support library that connects to the DOM. Then: WEBCIL-Python.
Sanyo Eneloop NiMH batteries last 3000 cycles retaining 80% of their charge capacity, and will maintain an 80% charge when left idle for 12 months.
Flu deaths are excellent. They cull the elderly off social security and medicare and cull the weak children out of our gene pool. Still waiting for a disease that selectively targets the stupid and the criminally insane.
The hilarious thing about SARS and MERS and H1N1 Swineflu is they're so ridiculously impotent. SARS will fucking kill you! ... it infected 8,000 people over like 15 years. H1N1 Swineflu infected 30,000 people in its peak run over 3 years--you know, when they then decided vaccines were bad for you--and killed very few. That same year, H3N5 and whatnot infected tens of millions and killed hundreds of thousands. H1N1 Bristol did about the same. The vaccination for H1N1 Swineflu was available separate for marketing purposes; but if you got a flu shot, you got H1N1 vaccine that year.
First, infra-red isn't created when visible light hits things, and CO2 isn't opaque to infra-red. Christ you're as dumb as a bloke I know who insists greenhouses work by concentrating infra-red because IR doesn't pass through glass and glass converts visible light to IR.
Fact 1: IR is not visible. The sun is a black body emitter; most of its energy (over 90%) is IR to begin with. In other words: it's 10 times brighter in IR than it is in Visible light.
Fact 2: Visible light isn't converted to IR when it hits things. Visible light is absorbed by an electron, which raises to a higher energy state, causing it to increase its distance from the nucleus of an atom. It then returns to its original energy state; the distance it moves in this return is the wavelength of the photon emitted when it returns to its base state. Photons outside this wavelength will be less effectively absorbed; fluorescent materials absorb them effectively, so rather than getting hot they glow brightly. Thus a portion of the energy from light is converted to heat, which radiates as IR; most of the energy from visible light reflects as visible light.
CO2 is not "opaque" to infra red. The chemical bonds in CO2 deflect slightly, causing vibration when exposed to infra red. This vibration causes the molecules to move apart, making them less dense; this creates a convection effect whereby the heated molecules move upwards in the atmosphere, transferring energy to higher-atmosphere gasses and away from the earth.
The reason the lower atmosphere is heating faster is because the upper atmosphere is radiating heat effectively--the air is thin and IR can travel further without hitting things, right until the edge of space where it just leaves--while the lower atmosphere is releasing heat that has been stored in the ocean.
Anyway you're a retard with no reading comprehension and no understanding of science outside fanciful and inaccurate grade school fairytales. I bet you even believe greenhouses work because glass blocks infra-red radiation--which is hilarious when you consider that the EPA recommends applying infra-red blocking film to south-facing windows to block up to 80% of incoming heat from sunlight and people still believe glass blocks IR.
This is American news. Over in Europe, most governments have been looking into the impacts of long-term global cooling for the past decade. Or so says that liberal hard-on machine Slate; I'm surprised Fox News hasn't jumped on this, doubly surprised that Republicans are usually the ones to call bullshit on the modern global cooling theory and immediately start spouting about how global warming is a well-established scientific fact. It's like the political ideologists can't keep straight what side of which issue they're on.