"Interesting how the huge spike in the temperature of the earth coincides with the invention of the oil-based economy and the spewing forth of greenhouse gases from our tailpipes."
It also just happens to coincide with the increase in urbanization, in which forests are being replaced with asphalt which radically changes the way heat is absorbed.
"I just love how people throws around the 'lack of proof' of scientific theories as an excuse to do nothing or to inject their own ideologies (*ahem* intelligent design)."
Its almost as great as people who use the fact that others (including many scientists, real ones, not just the fake ID 'scientists') point out a lack of proof as proof that their position (based more on Al Gore lectures and Hollywood movies than on what actual scientists are saying) is in fact correct.
Is it seriously that hard for you to believe that there are things other than greenhouse gases which affect the planet's climate (which is what the gp was arguing)? Or are you one of those people who thinks anyone who has the slightest doubt that greenhouse gases alone are the cause of all suffering in the world must believe global warming isn't happening at all?
And they just included the upper, less accurate limit in their headline. That is the very definition of sensationalism.
"I have no more patience for these fools who don't have an interest in science or much of anything outside their own little self serving world"
What a coincidence, I have no more patience for people who just finished reading an article in Ranger Rick and think they are experts in science.
"They don't read scientific journals, and who hence have no idea how important the global scientific consensus for global warming is."
Science isn't about consensus. That's politics you are thinking of.
"These people don't even give a half a shit literally hundreds of millions of poor people around the world suffer and die from drought, crop failures, and many other near-apocalyptic consequences if global warming is allowed to continue."
Yes, there are droughts in the world. Yes, there are natural disasters in the world. Yes, it is tragic. But it is not because George Bush didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol several years ago. In fact, there have been disasters since human beings first walked upon the Earth.
I hate to break it to you, but the real world is not like Disney's The Lion King or any of those environmental movies you watched in grade school. The ecosystem is not this fragile thing that will be completely destroyed should something minor happen (like a change of a few degrees in the average temperature). In fact those changes happen all the time, the Earth's temperature has been rising since the end of the little ice age in the mid 1800's. And the world has survived disasters much worse than anything humans could cause; supervolcanos, asteroids, etc. are all much, much more powerful than even our prize nuclear weapons. The food chain didn't collapse then, it won't collapse now. It may very well change as it has always done, but that is far different from collapsing.
"but AFAICR (can recall) he doesn't admit a human influence and he doesn't believe that measures need to be taken by humans to prevent continued global warming."
Actually he has...
And 'human influence' doesn't really matter, we are just as screwed if it is caused by sunspots or volcanos as if it were caused by human beings. In fact concentrating on that is likely to make things worse as it only furthers the delusion that we are the sole source of anything bad happening, and that once we all switch to driving hybrids the Earth's climate will magically remain the same for thousands of years.
Re:OMG!? "Opera-specific extensions"!?
on
Opera 9.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
No, I know what code reuse is, thats not what I meant. I mean if you build something neat with javascript you have to also write another version using basic html page to work with users who do not have javascript enabled (and often again to make your site accessible, those onMouse events don't work very well when the user cannot use a mouse).
Re:OMG!? "Opera-specific extensions"!?
on
Opera 9.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
Well you generally have to write stuff twice when you want to do something like include javascript in your page, and many employers have no problem with that. If yours do, then I guess you work for someone who is cheap.
"well, his argument about why he didn't get sick is (scientifically) correct. "
Sure, because no one ever gets the same disease twice (even years later when it has had a chance to mutate and after your resistence has had a chance to fall dramatically), wheras vaccinations (which are in reality a conspiracy thought up by the government to implant microchips in you) will just result in you getting sick again after a few years.
"Dude, what are you talking about? How are sunburn and flu even closely related? Never mind the fact that sunburn is a non-viral infection."
Are you really that unfamiliar with the concept of sarcasm? Obviously the flu and suburns are unrelated, I was mocking his argument, not supporting it.
Re:OMG!? "Opera-specific extensions"!?
on
Opera 9.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
"Webdesign still has to be done to the lowest level for maximum compatability with users, which is now IE 6.0."
Well you can always determine which browser the user is using and give the IE users a plainer version of the site that, while maybe not as pretty, is perfectly functional. Thats better than what many designers do in which they make something that only works in IE, and then when you write a letter to complain they tell you that they are "Happy to inform you that you must use Interent Explorer" to use their site (I'm not making that up, I had a response with almost that exact same wording once).
"The phrase I latched onto specifically was "expected of you", rather than just "expected", which (IMHO) has a subtle but very different meaning. The relevant entry in Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary is here. Specifically:
to consider bound in duty or obligated
which gives meaning to the original phrase something as: "If a 19 year old takes you to dinner and a movie and you agree to go back to his place certain (sexual) things are expected of you (you are bound in duty to deliver these sexual things or obligated to deliver these sexual things)". Obviously there is big problem with this, hence why I hope the GP really didn't mean it like that."
You left out the word 'consider'. She is not in reality bound in duty, but its very possible (if not likely) that the 19 year old considers her in some way bound in duty. Expectations are not needed to be rooted in reality, in fact they are often not.
A few years ago, the rest of my family got real sick of the flu. I, however, didn't even get a cough. When I was a kid I once got a second degree sunburn. No one else in my family did, they just used sunblock. Based on your logic, this must mean my sunburn protected me against the disease, while the rest of my family suffered.
Yes, vaccinations can wear out or become ineffective. But surprise, so can antibodies from exposure to the 'real disease'. There are plenty of people out there who have gotten sick from diseases they had as children. Its rare (just like people getting sick from something they were properly vaccinated for), but perfectly possible.
"Vaccination really relies on herd immunity rather than individual immunity."
No, thats the second dumbest thing I've heard today (though its 1:30 in the morning so that doesn't really mean anything). Both vaccinations and exposure to the 'real disease' rely on the exact same thing, the production of antibodies from exposure to the disease (in either a full out infection or in the weakened form supplied by the vaccination).
"The key word is "publish", not "try to publish"."
Unfortunately wanting to publish something is not a guarentee that it will be published, especially if it is an idea that has not yet reached the point where it will be useful (think about how long oo programming was around before it became popular). And wherever it goes, you have to be able to show that it existed before the other guy came up with the idea, so it is not enough to just throw an idea up on your blog, its too easy to fake something like that.
"Even if neither the applicant nor the USPTO had actually found your description, its existence will be enough to get the patent overturned (unless the application preceded your publication)."
No, proving its existence will be enough to get the patent overturned. The burden is on you to do so. Plus, their patent may well be upheld if there is enough of a difference between how you described it and how they describe it in the patent application.
I'm sure many people work for IBM, just like how many people work for the various other companies that have such patent policies (including one mentioned in this article). Whats your point?
"All they have to do to protect themself from someone else claiming patent infringment is to release whatever it is."
What, did you forget to read the third sentence of my post? If offers a key advantage to filing a patent. Besides, which offers more protection, a paper you threw together and tried to have published, or a formal document filed with the patent office?
"As for what should be patented or not, algorithms, business methods, and software shoudn't be granted patents. Patents are supposed to encourage progress but patents on these don't, in fact they may inhibit progress."
The US patent office office disagrees. Guess what the difference is between your opinion and their opinion? Their opinion matters. Whining about how you disagree with the idea that software patents encourage progress won't stop the patent office from accepting such patents, and offers no protection should someone file a lawsuit against you.
My company encourages employees to patent seemingly anything useful they come up with not so that they can sue other companies who end up coming up with similar technologies, but for protection. They know that they have a much better chance at surviving a patent lawsuit if they already have a patent for the thing they are being sued for. Plus, they can be used as the business version of mutual assured destruction. If someone tries to sue us or sue a technology we support, we can return fire with our entire patent portfolio.
"That being said, I also question that it should take that long to conclude on the data collected."
Arguably the most important part of the data (how many of the subjects went on to develop cirrhosis) could only be collected very recently. Were you expecting them to just guess how many would eventually get the disease?
Yes, I'm not saying that an application using nothing but javascript can do whatever it wants. I'm saying that theoretically, a cross compilation tool can have its generated javascript code do anything that the origional code can do without the limitations of the javascript language being a problem.
"These students did not murder anyone, yet you would assume that they imply a threat where others see a commentary of the chilling effects of authoritarian control."
No, others (such as the ones arguing to punish him) saw it as a threat. Thats why they wanted him expelled, in case you forgot to RTFA.
"Feel proud that you read into neutral or ambivalent text the justification for the stifling of free speech."
Excuse me? When exactly did I express an opinion over whether or not he should be allowed "free speech" over what he posts on his blog? As opposed to merely stating that this kid should have thought about what he wanted to write before sitting in front of the keyboard? Because there is a difference. Your post is a prime example, as while it fails to contain an even remotely logical argument, I do not feel you should be banned from slashdot.
I can give you a link to a description as to how you would go about it. Basically you write the device driver code in C, then expose access to that code in a webapp running on your server, and have the JavaScript app access that app using XMLHttpRequests. No I cannot give you a link to an actual implementation as no one (hopefully) would be dumb enough to expose device driver access over the net...
Well if you want to be technical about it, a JavaScript app can do anything an app in Java (or C++ or any other language) can do. In fact, it would be pretty easy, anytime it is supposed to do something in the second language, it sends an HTTP request to the server with the function it wants to execute and have it return the result in the response.
Now that being said, that would be a very bad design. Aside from the fact that it would have horrible performance from all the requests that are sent to the poor server and all the responses that the app has to wait for, it would open up a huge security hole. Any code that is exposed to your JavaScript app that you nicely coded (or had auto-generated) will have to also be exposed to anyone with an Internet connection. So that would probably be a very bad model. Now I doubt that the Google framework does this (or there would have been outcry long ago), but I fear it is only a matter of time before someone does try something like this and a huge security risk is exposed.
Well, Javascript itself is a hack. So is Ajax, for that matter. It is an attempt to turn a client application designed to browse static web pages (remember those, from the dark ages of the 1990s?) into a dynamic client based web application, something it was never really meant to do.
I find it ironic that normally scripting languages are considered high level languages that are easy to develop in, but with Javascript we actually have libraries that attempt to force code written in a compiled language into a script...
I also find it ironic that this whole time we have had a technology that allows people to execute java code in a browser, in fact it was one of the first uses of Java. I'm guessing the early proponents of Java applets are feeling pretty bad now.
Slashdot Mirror
It also just happens to coincide with the increase in urbanization, in which forests are being replaced with asphalt which radically changes the way heat is absorbed.
"I just love how people throws around the 'lack of proof' of scientific theories as an excuse to do nothing or to inject their own ideologies (*ahem* intelligent design)."
Its almost as great as people who use the fact that others (including many scientists, real ones, not just the fake ID 'scientists') point out a lack of proof as proof that their position (based more on Al Gore lectures and Hollywood movies than on what actual scientists are saying) is in fact correct.
Is it seriously that hard for you to believe that there are things other than greenhouse gases which affect the planet's climate (which is what the gp was arguing)? Or are you one of those people who thinks anyone who has the slightest doubt that greenhouse gases alone are the cause of all suffering in the world must believe global warming isn't happening at all?
And they just included the upper, less accurate limit in their headline. That is the very definition of sensationalism.
"I have no more patience for these fools who don't have an interest in science or much of anything outside their own little self serving world"
What a coincidence, I have no more patience for people who just finished reading an article in Ranger Rick and think they are experts in science.
"They don't read scientific journals, and who hence have no idea how important the global scientific consensus for global warming is."
Science isn't about consensus. That's politics you are thinking of.
"These people don't even give a half a shit literally hundreds of millions of poor people around the world suffer and die from drought, crop failures, and many other near-apocalyptic consequences if global warming is allowed to continue."
Yes, there are droughts in the world. Yes, there are natural disasters in the world. Yes, it is tragic. But it is not because George Bush didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol several years ago. In fact, there have been disasters since human beings first walked upon the Earth.
I hate to break it to you, but the real world is not like Disney's The Lion King or any of those environmental movies you watched in grade school. The ecosystem is not this fragile thing that will be completely destroyed should something minor happen (like a change of a few degrees in the average temperature). In fact those changes happen all the time, the Earth's temperature has been rising since the end of the little ice age in the mid 1800's. And the world has survived disasters much worse than anything humans could cause; supervolcanos, asteroids, etc. are all much, much more powerful than even our prize nuclear weapons. The food chain didn't collapse then, it won't collapse now. It may very well change as it has always done, but that is far different from collapsing.
Actually he has...
And 'human influence' doesn't really matter, we are just as screwed if it is caused by sunspots or volcanos as if it were caused by human beings. In fact concentrating on that is likely to make things worse as it only furthers the delusion that we are the sole source of anything bad happening, and that once we all switch to driving hybrids the Earth's climate will magically remain the same for thousands of years.
No, I know what code reuse is, thats not what I meant. I mean if you build something neat with javascript you have to also write another version using basic html page to work with users who do not have javascript enabled (and often again to make your site accessible, those onMouse events don't work very well when the user cannot use a mouse).
Well you generally have to write stuff twice when you want to do something like include javascript in your page, and many employers have no problem with that. If yours do, then I guess you work for someone who is cheap.
Sure, because no one ever gets the same disease twice (even years later when it has had a chance to mutate and after your resistence has had a chance to fall dramatically), wheras vaccinations (which are in reality a conspiracy thought up by the government to implant microchips in you) will just result in you getting sick again after a few years.
In case you get confused again, that was sarcasm.
Are you really that unfamiliar with the concept of sarcasm? Obviously the flu and suburns are unrelated, I was mocking his argument, not supporting it.
Well you can always determine which browser the user is using and give the IE users a plainer version of the site that, while maybe not as pretty, is perfectly functional. Thats better than what many designers do in which they make something that only works in IE, and then when you write a letter to complain they tell you that they are "Happy to inform you that you must use Interent Explorer" to use their site (I'm not making that up, I had a response with almost that exact same wording once).
I was just about to say, how long before a parent gets sued for failing to protect their kid? Knowing our lawyer happy society, not long...
to consider bound in duty or obligated
which gives meaning to the original phrase something as: "If a 19 year old takes you to dinner and a movie and you agree to go back to his place certain (sexual) things are expected of you (you are bound in duty to deliver these sexual things or obligated to deliver these sexual things)". Obviously there is big problem with this, hence why I hope the GP really didn't mean it like that."
You left out the word 'consider'. She is not in reality bound in duty, but its very possible (if not likely) that the 19 year old considers her in some way bound in duty. Expectations are not needed to be rooted in reality, in fact they are often not.
What, parents taking responsibility for their kids?
Yes, vaccinations can wear out or become ineffective. But surprise, so can antibodies from exposure to the 'real disease'. There are plenty of people out there who have gotten sick from diseases they had as children. Its rare (just like people getting sick from something they were properly vaccinated for), but perfectly possible.
"Vaccination really relies on herd immunity rather than individual immunity."
No, thats the second dumbest thing I've heard today (though its 1:30 in the morning so that doesn't really mean anything). Both vaccinations and exposure to the 'real disease' rely on the exact same thing, the production of antibodies from exposure to the disease (in either a full out infection or in the weakened form supplied by the vaccination).
Unfortunately wanting to publish something is not a guarentee that it will be published, especially if it is an idea that has not yet reached the point where it will be useful (think about how long oo programming was around before it became popular). And wherever it goes, you have to be able to show that it existed before the other guy came up with the idea, so it is not enough to just throw an idea up on your blog, its too easy to fake something like that.
"Even if neither the applicant nor the USPTO had actually found your description, its existence will be enough to get the patent overturned (unless the application preceded your publication)."
No, proving its existence will be enough to get the patent overturned. The burden is on you to do so. Plus, their patent may well be upheld if there is enough of a difference between how you described it and how they describe it in the patent application.
I'm sure many people work for IBM, just like how many people work for the various other companies that have such patent policies (including one mentioned in this article). Whats your point?
What, did you forget to read the third sentence of my post? If offers a key advantage to filing a patent. Besides, which offers more protection, a paper you threw together and tried to have published, or a formal document filed with the patent office?
"As for what should be patented or not, algorithms, business methods, and software shoudn't be granted patents. Patents are supposed to encourage progress but patents on these don't, in fact they may inhibit progress."
The US patent office office disagrees. Guess what the difference is between your opinion and their opinion? Their opinion matters. Whining about how you disagree with the idea that software patents encourage progress won't stop the patent office from accepting such patents, and offers no protection should someone file a lawsuit against you.
My company encourages employees to patent seemingly anything useful they come up with not so that they can sue other companies who end up coming up with similar technologies, but for protection. They know that they have a much better chance at surviving a patent lawsuit if they already have a patent for the thing they are being sued for. Plus, they can be used as the business version of mutual assured destruction. If someone tries to sue us or sue a technology we support, we can return fire with our entire patent portfolio.
Arguably the most important part of the data (how many of the subjects went on to develop cirrhosis) could only be collected very recently. Were you expecting them to just guess how many would eventually get the disease?
Well yeah, if they can do it in a sci-fi series it must be possible in real life!
Yes, I'm not saying that an application using nothing but javascript can do whatever it wants. I'm saying that theoretically, a cross compilation tool can have its generated javascript code do anything that the origional code can do without the limitations of the javascript language being a problem.
No, others (such as the ones arguing to punish him) saw it as a threat. Thats why they wanted him expelled, in case you forgot to RTFA.
"Feel proud that you read into neutral or ambivalent text the justification for the stifling of free speech."
Excuse me? When exactly did I express an opinion over whether or not he should be allowed "free speech" over what he posts on his blog? As opposed to merely stating that this kid should have thought about what he wanted to write before sitting in front of the keyboard? Because there is a difference. Your post is a prime example, as while it fails to contain an even remotely logical argument, I do not feel you should be banned from slashdot.
I can give you a link to a description as to how you would go about it. Basically you write the device driver code in C, then expose access to that code in a webapp running on your server, and have the JavaScript app access that app using XMLHttpRequests. No I cannot give you a link to an actual implementation as no one (hopefully) would be dumb enough to expose device driver access over the net...
Now that being said, that would be a very bad design. Aside from the fact that it would have horrible performance from all the requests that are sent to the poor server and all the responses that the app has to wait for, it would open up a huge security hole. Any code that is exposed to your JavaScript app that you nicely coded (or had auto-generated) will have to also be exposed to anyone with an Internet connection. So that would probably be a very bad model. Now I doubt that the Google framework does this (or there would have been outcry long ago), but I fear it is only a matter of time before someone does try something like this and a huge security risk is exposed.
Well, Javascript itself is a hack. So is Ajax, for that matter. It is an attempt to turn a client application designed to browse static web pages (remember those, from the dark ages of the 1990s?) into a dynamic client based web application, something it was never really meant to do.
I find it ironic that normally scripting languages are considered high level languages that are easy to develop in, but with Javascript we actually have libraries that attempt to force code written in a compiled language into a script...
I also find it ironic that this whole time we have had a technology that allows people to execute java code in a browser, in fact it was one of the first uses of Java. I'm guessing the early proponents of Java applets are feeling pretty bad now.