Haha right back at ya, troll (minus the childish namecalling, of course.)
Don't tell me you found this garbage enlightening... or that you believe the site would be better served if the stories on the main page were meant to be links to anonymous hicks' youtube videos.
This is not the sort of content I want to see here and that's 100% my opinion.
The situation as it stands is unacceptable. The telcos have proved that they cannot operate broadband service fairly without regulation. Therefore: something akin to common carrier laws should be in effect for all broadband service providers.
Seriously. More important that "what platform?" is "what scope?" and "whose responsibility?" I am a professional web developer, and IMO going in without firm answers to these questions is just nuts.
You stated there is no budget... what *exactly* will the site do? It will need a webmaster, and if the scope of the project is not clearly limited, you may find yourself in waaaay over your head. A decent website will take hundreds of hours to set up even with the most ideal CMS package. That's without accounting for ongoing maintenance, the expectations of (tech-ignorant) municipal leaders, and the thousand nebulous variables you will end up juggling if you don't clearly define your objectives.
Unless you are talking about a few static pages, this sounds like a bad idea to me. If the municipality wants a website, before you volunteer you need to make sure they: a) understand that a website is a long-term commitment b) specify exactly what the website needs to do (and understand that changing this is a Big Deal with real consequences for the cost of the site) c) allocate resources appropriately
http://yourbrainonporn.com/
This site presents a case against Internet porn from a theoretical biological standpoint and is backed up by thousands of anecdotal accounts from individuals that have recovered or are recovering from Internet pornography addiction. It is the first material that I have yet read that has been able to show me potential actual negatives of Internet porn use.
The short version: porn and Internet porn are not the same thing. Human brains were not designed for the dopamine overload that viewing hundreds of attractive naked mates per Internet porn session allows. There may be effects on ones normal brain functioning due to dopamine receptor deregulation if one regularly indulges in Internet porn. These effects can alter your mood, your attention span, and your social interactions.
There is a 1.5 hour video series explaining the neuroscience behind the site's message, and there are many, many members discussing the impact that Internet porn has had on their lives. It appears to me after viewing the videos that it may be time to revise my own thoughts about Internet porn. I still don't believe that Internet porn should be banned, but I do believe that in the future people will be more aware of Internet porn's potential effects on brain physiology because they could indeed be interpreted as negative effects.
Staying true to your personal sense of ethics is exactly what being a principled individual is all about. I understand that you find yourself in a situation where you have clients and employers to satisfy, and you rightly recognize that it would be an ethical problem if you failed to represent these entities to the fullest of your ability. What you have not addressed is the fact that you are using this situation to excuse yourself of moral responsibility for what you argue in the courtroom. "Well the law says..." or "well I have a client to represent..." are really just rhetorical tools that you are using to gloss over the truth of the issue: you help to bring about that which you yourself describe as "totally out of control."
You didn't respond appropriately to any of the points I made in the previous post so I don't expect that you will adequately refute this reiteration of the same point. You must recognize the conflicts of interest inherent with what you do... they are quite obvious. Just don't be so stubborn as to not at least acknowledge the possibility that we here in this thread may have a valid point. In the words of Shakespeare: "to thine own self be true."
The posts above demonstrate that you are not so much concerned with principle; that you are willing to compromise your ethics for money. A principled man would not stand for something he did not believe was right no matter who he worked for. In fact he would refuse jobs that were not in line with his ethics because he would recognize the conflict of interest that such jobs would bring about. You have shown that you are willing to act other than according to your sense of what is right in exchange for a paycheck. Most people would consider this unethical.
You stated above that you believe the copyright system to be completely broken. As long as you and your lawyer ilk continue to argue on behalf of ever stronger copyright despite your intuition of ethics, the copyright system will only become more oppressive, giving interests with the resources to buy you out of your principles power over those who do not have such resources. It is precisely because of unprincipled lawyers that legal systems break down over time, becoming instruments of protection and oppression for the moneyed rather than instruments of equality and justice for all.
If you are OK with this state of affairs and you have no qualms about shelving your sense of civic propriety, then these actions could be considered to be ethical for you from an ethically relativistic or ethically agnostic standpoint (i.e. to each his own ethics.) They will never be considered ethical by me, and they are the reason that some people despise those in the legal profession.
How anyone can not see the obvious truth of the parent post is a mystery to me. At the end of the day, both major parties have made a full-time job of cronyism, lending the forces of law and military to the highest bidder. The situation is truly despicable, yet the common man continues to defend his chosen party. What a "choice" it is.
Propaganda is thick in the media and most people seem to eat it up without a second thought. Take Ron Paul as an easy example: an honest, principled man stands against all the lies and the corruption for 30 years... and thanks to the political machine people think of him as a crank and a looney. His supporters were effectively stonewalled from the very start of the election cycle, with legally questionably and ethically deplorable shenanigans by establishment Republicans every step of the way. Today, the RNC chairman releases a gem in the media "I hope that Ron Paul supporters and delegates saw a Republican National Committee that was fair, open and honest." The caption even said "the Romney campaign has bent over backward to show respect to the Paul forces." These lies aren't even thinly veiled. They are obvious lies. How can so many people remain so ignorant?
I am deeply troubled over the political destiny of the USA. I'll leave it at that.
A quote to ponder: "War is Peace. Ignorance is Knowledge. Freedom is Slavery." The implications of this quote and the opportunities afforded those who would seek to understand it are more relevant here and now than ever before.
Step 1: Get a good quality, highly adjustable chair. Lumbar and height adjustments to fit your body are a must. Set your chair to perfectly mimick the natural curves in your lower back, and sit leaning back about 15-25 degrees from upright, with both feet square on the ground in front of you. Don't slouch! Lower the armrests so you can't use them... slouching to the side is tempting and is terrible for your spinal health in the long term. Your monitor screen should be positioned directly in front of you at eye level so you don't have to strain your neck at all.
Step 2: Stand up and stretch your legs, back, and neck at least once every two hours. I also like to go for a short walk around the office.
Step 3: Do core strengthening for your lower back 2-3 times per week. It doesn't need to be a complicated ordeal; light calisthenics for 10 minutes will keep you in much better shape than no exercise at all. Bridges, supermans, leg raises, and crunches all factor into my routine, and there are many variations on each so I like to switch it up. My only equipment is one of those inflatable exercise balls. You may want to visit a professional physical therapist to ensure you are getting the most out of your workouts.
Following something like the above plan is almost necessary for anyone sitting long hours in front of a screen each day. For me, with my tall narrow body shape, it is doubly so. I manage to get by with minimal discomfort using this plan. If I get lazy for a few months, sit slouchy and neglect the exercise, I pay with constant discomfort. The difference is huge.
Parent presents the crux of the current situation perfectly: if obvious and timely improvements are patentable then those patents granted to obvious and timely improvements serve no purpose other than a barrier to entry for competitors. Who can afford to enter business when every item, every process, and every configuration needs to be checked against a patent library with millions of entries? Especially now that patents have become this ridiculous.
This boils down to a patent on miniaturized notebooks that also happen to fit all their internal components comfortably inside. Ridiculous. The principle is not new, the improvement is apparent even to a monkey, and the patent should have been thrown out immediately.
I'm getting fed up of the constant references to the magical properties on "non-Newtonian" fluids. Non-Newtonian fluids have a huge range of properties in terms of their response to shear and change over time. This is constantly abused by geeks who should know better. Off the top of my head:
What people usually mean is a "shear-thickening" fluid such as corn starch and water. These become more effectively viscous in response to shear.
"Shear-thinning" fluids are *also* non-Newtonian, are fairly common, and have the exact opposite behaviour.
So you recognize that others are using the term "non-newtonian fluid" in a technically correct fashion, but you are frustrated by the fact that they do so without using more specific terminology? Furthermore, their choice of words amounts to some kind of abuse?
Come off it, really. Yes, you know more about the subject than others do--good for you. That you feel it necessary to speak out as you have only reveals the height of your hubris and the depth of your snobbery.
Most people will never have a need in their lives to understand these substances even in terms as specific as "non-newtonian." If you expect people to give a damn about something so esoteric, you are setting yourself up for this kind of frustration.
Also, if you had RTFA you would have seen that the author dedicated several paragraphs to non-newtonian fluids. He went into a good bit more detail than you have above.
The author of this article is an asshole who doesn't understand how computers work. To paraphrase him: "I want it, and I want it now. Period. PERIOD."
Sometimes even with computer technology as advanced as it is, applications need time to load. A splash screen says "Don't worry Mr. Computer User, this program has successfully launched and is now loading." Without the splash, you'd sit and wonder if the program was loading or not... and then probably launch it a second time before it was finished loading, further slowing the process.
John Doe downloaded a song using Limewire. Obviously it was Limewire's fault for allowing John Doe to acces the music.
CNET hosted downloads of Limewire. Obviously it was CNETs fault for allowing John Doe to access Limewire.
Google linked to CNET. Obviously it was Google's fault for allowing John Doe to access CNET.
AT&T delivered Google to John Doe's house via wire. Obvously it was AT&Ts fault for allowing John Doe to access Google.
BHP Billiton produced the wire that allowed AT&T to connect with John Doe. Obviously is was Billiton's fault for allowing John Doe to access AT&T.
Obviously we stem this at the source and make sure copper producers don't do business with the likes of AT&T. This will be the only real and lasting solution.
The US Constitution was designed to prevent people from being subject to the whims of lawmakers a thousand miles away. Powers not specifically delineated therein are to be delegated to the states. This is why the federal government should not be doing 90% of what they do.
You have a valid point--that SOPA has come about in part because millions of individuals willfully disregard the law and disrespect copyright. I can get behind you on this point.
However, you must also remember that there is a fundamental difference between stealing something and copying it. Theft involves taking something away from someone else. When you steal an item, the original owner loses possession of that item, and he can no longer gain the benefit of that item's utility. When you copy an item, the owner retains ownership of his copy and can continue to utilize it. In this way, infringing copyright is not the same as stealing.
Equating copyright infringement with theft confuses the issue by drawing a parallel which is not entirely valid.
not to nitpick or anything, but although history takes the entire past as a whole, it is also the study of the study of the past. so technically, she may just be speaking of what we know about the planet's past based on what has been studied so far. with that being said, she is correct.
Bingo.
Here's a fun lesson for everyone else: If interpretation (A) is absurd, seek interpretation (B).
It appears obvious to me that the author did not intend to communicate what many of you are attributing to her.
The words the author used were "has never happened in the history of the planet," not "has never occurred on this planet before." You might want to reacquaint yourself with the various possible meanings of the word "history" before you inaccurately restate what the author has said.
Such a claim is not only suspect, it is ridiculous. That fact alone should cause you to reexamine what the author has written and reconsider your interpretation before you decry her for it.
Or perhaps you didn't read what the author wrote. The author did not use the same words that you are using to communicate her ideas. Obviously no scientist would make a claim such as the claim that you are attributing to her.
What the author meant was: we have no previous record of or analysis suggesting an event of this kind and magnitude.
What you interpreted was: an event of this kind and magnitude has never previously occurred.
I believe you misinterpret her meaning as the parent post does... the word "history" is not usually used to mean simply "the past," but rather refers to available information about past events.
Humanity doesn't have a complete record of planetary events... and the history that we do have does not include an event like this. I do not believe that the author was intending to imply that the phenomenon she witnessed had categorically never previously occurred. She was merely stating that humanity has not, to date, observed such an event.
""The concentration of atmospheric methane increased unto three times in the past two centuries from 0.7 parts per million to 1.7ppm, and in the Arctic to 1.9ppm. That's a huge increase, between two and three times,"
I'm OK with her statement, until this:
"...and this has never happened in the history of the planet," she added.
So there's data for the last 4+ BILLION years with 10-50 year precision so that over a 100-200 year timespan, she can measure the slope of the line (rate in rise over the run of time) precisely enough to say that the slope of the line over the last 200 years is steeper than it has been in any other 200 year period in the last 4 billion years? Sorry, but I find that hard to believe.
This is a classic semantic disconnect: The difficulty you have with the author's statement revolves around the usage and meaning of of the word "history."
According to Wikipedia, "history is the discovery, collection, organization, and presentation of information about past events." Thus, by it's very nature history is a human construct, and constrained by the time period during which humans have been recording data.
When she uses the word "history" in the context of the article, the author is referring to all of the records that are known to exist from the beginning of human record keeping. And so far, in the human era, nothing like this event has ever before been recorded.
If the author had phrased it "in the past" rather than "in the history of the planet," her implication would jibe with the inference you have made about her meaning.
It might be helpful for you to think of the word "history" as equivalent to the phrase "recorded history." It is a redundant phrase as the word "history" denotes "recorded," but the mental exercise could help you to avoid this same semantic dilemma in the future.
Also for completeness: it is true that the word "history" is sometimes used in common language to connote simply "the past," and dictionaries will recognize this--however, in most contexts it is not used this way.
Slashdot Mirror
Haha right back at ya, troll (minus the childish namecalling, of course.)
Don't tell me you found this garbage enlightening... or that you believe the site would be better served if the stories on the main page were meant to be links to anonymous hicks' youtube videos.
This is not the sort of content I want to see here and that's 100% my opinion.
...because this is NEWS.
The situation as it stands is unacceptable. The telcos have proved that they cannot operate broadband service fairly without regulation. Therefore: something akin to common carrier laws should be in effect for all broadband service providers.
Seriously. More important that "what platform?" is "what scope?" and "whose responsibility?" I am a professional web developer, and IMO going in without firm answers to these questions is just nuts.
You stated there is no budget... what *exactly* will the site do? It will need a webmaster, and if the scope of the project is not clearly limited, you may find yourself in waaaay over your head. A decent website will take hundreds of hours to set up even with the most ideal CMS package. That's without accounting for ongoing maintenance, the expectations of (tech-ignorant) municipal leaders, and the thousand nebulous variables you will end up juggling if you don't clearly define your objectives.
Unless you are talking about a few static pages, this sounds like a bad idea to me. If the municipality wants a website, before you volunteer you need to make sure they:
a) understand that a website is a long-term commitment
b) specify exactly what the website needs to do (and understand that changing this is a Big Deal with real consequences for the cost of the site)
c) allocate resources appropriately
Looks like you discovered the Godel sentence for this system... guess we'll just have to recognize it as incomplete and move along.
http://yourbrainonporn.com/ This site presents a case against Internet porn from a theoretical biological standpoint and is backed up by thousands of anecdotal accounts from individuals that have recovered or are recovering from Internet pornography addiction. It is the first material that I have yet read that has been able to show me potential actual negatives of Internet porn use. The short version: porn and Internet porn are not the same thing. Human brains were not designed for the dopamine overload that viewing hundreds of attractive naked mates per Internet porn session allows. There may be effects on ones normal brain functioning due to dopamine receptor deregulation if one regularly indulges in Internet porn. These effects can alter your mood, your attention span, and your social interactions. There is a 1.5 hour video series explaining the neuroscience behind the site's message, and there are many, many members discussing the impact that Internet porn has had on their lives. It appears to me after viewing the videos that it may be time to revise my own thoughts about Internet porn. I still don't believe that Internet porn should be banned, but I do believe that in the future people will be more aware of Internet porn's potential effects on brain physiology because they could indeed be interpreted as negative effects.
Staying true to your personal sense of ethics is exactly what being a principled individual is all about. I understand that you find yourself in a situation where you have clients and employers to satisfy, and you rightly recognize that it would be an ethical problem if you failed to represent these entities to the fullest of your ability. What you have not addressed is the fact that you are using this situation to excuse yourself of moral responsibility for what you argue in the courtroom. "Well the law says..." or "well I have a client to represent..." are really just rhetorical tools that you are using to gloss over the truth of the issue: you help to bring about that which you yourself describe as "totally out of control."
You didn't respond appropriately to any of the points I made in the previous post so I don't expect that you will adequately refute this reiteration of the same point. You must recognize the conflicts of interest inherent with what you do... they are quite obvious. Just don't be so stubborn as to not at least acknowledge the possibility that we here in this thread may have a valid point. In the words of Shakespeare: "to thine own self be true."
The posts above demonstrate that you are not so much concerned with principle; that you are willing to compromise your ethics for money. A principled man would not stand for something he did not believe was right no matter who he worked for. In fact he would refuse jobs that were not in line with his ethics because he would recognize the conflict of interest that such jobs would bring about. You have shown that you are willing to act other than according to your sense of what is right in exchange for a paycheck. Most people would consider this unethical.
You stated above that you believe the copyright system to be completely broken. As long as you and your lawyer ilk continue to argue on behalf of ever stronger copyright despite your intuition of ethics, the copyright system will only become more oppressive, giving interests with the resources to buy you out of your principles power over those who do not have such resources. It is precisely because of unprincipled lawyers that legal systems break down over time, becoming instruments of protection and oppression for the moneyed rather than instruments of equality and justice for all.
If you are OK with this state of affairs and you have no qualms about shelving your sense of civic propriety, then these actions could be considered to be ethical for you from an ethically relativistic or ethically agnostic standpoint (i.e. to each his own ethics.) They will never be considered ethical by me, and they are the reason that some people despise those in the legal profession.
What could possibly go wrong?
How anyone can not see the obvious truth of the parent post is a mystery to me. At the end of the day, both major parties have made a full-time job of cronyism, lending the forces of law and military to the highest bidder. The situation is truly despicable, yet the common man continues to defend his chosen party. What a "choice" it is.
Propaganda is thick in the media and most people seem to eat it up without a second thought. Take Ron Paul as an easy example: an honest, principled man stands against all the lies and the corruption for 30 years... and thanks to the political machine people think of him as a crank and a looney. His supporters were effectively stonewalled from the very start of the election cycle, with legally questionably and ethically deplorable shenanigans by establishment Republicans every step of the way. Today, the RNC chairman releases a gem in the media "I hope that Ron Paul supporters and delegates saw a Republican National Committee that was fair, open and honest." The caption even said "the Romney campaign has bent over backward to show respect to the Paul forces." These lies aren't even thinly veiled. They are obvious lies. How can so many people remain so ignorant?
I am deeply troubled over the political destiny of the USA. I'll leave it at that.
A quote to ponder: "War is Peace. Ignorance is Knowledge. Freedom is Slavery." The implications of this quote and the opportunities afforded those who would seek to understand it are more relevant here and now than ever before.
Step 1: Get a good quality, highly adjustable chair. Lumbar and height adjustments to fit your body are a must. Set your chair to perfectly mimick the natural curves in your lower back, and sit leaning back about 15-25 degrees from upright, with both feet square on the ground in front of you. Don't slouch! Lower the armrests so you can't use them... slouching to the side is tempting and is terrible for your spinal health in the long term. Your monitor screen should be positioned directly in front of you at eye level so you don't have to strain your neck at all.
Step 2: Stand up and stretch your legs, back, and neck at least once every two hours. I also like to go for a short walk around the office.
Step 3: Do core strengthening for your lower back 2-3 times per week. It doesn't need to be a complicated ordeal; light calisthenics for 10 minutes will keep you in much better shape than no exercise at all. Bridges, supermans, leg raises, and crunches all factor into my routine, and there are many variations on each so I like to switch it up. My only equipment is one of those inflatable exercise balls. You may want to visit a professional physical therapist to ensure you are getting the most out of your workouts.
Following something like the above plan is almost necessary for anyone sitting long hours in front of a screen each day. For me, with my tall narrow body shape, it is doubly so. I manage to get by with minimal discomfort using this plan. If I get lazy for a few months, sit slouchy and neglect the exercise, I pay with constant discomfort. The difference is huge.
...usenet?
+1!
Parent presents the crux of the current situation perfectly: if obvious and timely improvements are patentable then those patents granted to obvious and timely improvements serve no purpose other than a barrier to entry for competitors. Who can afford to enter business when every item, every process, and every configuration needs to be checked against a patent library with millions of entries? Especially now that patents have become this ridiculous.
Wedge-shaped notebook PCs? Electronic typewriters have used this basic design principal for nearly 50 years!
http://img289.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=188880203_unnamed_122_202lo.jpg
Does that look like a wedge to anyone else?
This boils down to a patent on miniaturized notebooks that also happen to fit all their internal components comfortably inside. Ridiculous. The principle is not new, the improvement is apparent even to a monkey, and the patent should have been thrown out immediately.
I'm getting fed up of the constant references to the magical properties on "non-Newtonian" fluids. Non-Newtonian fluids have a huge range of properties in terms of their response to shear and change over time. This is constantly abused by geeks who should know better. Off the top of my head:
What people usually mean is a "shear-thickening" fluid such as corn starch and water. These become more effectively viscous in response to shear.
"Shear-thinning" fluids are *also* non-Newtonian, are fairly common, and have the exact opposite behaviour.
So you recognize that others are using the term "non-newtonian fluid" in a technically correct fashion, but you are frustrated by the fact that they do so without using more specific terminology? Furthermore, their choice of words amounts to some kind of abuse?
Come off it, really. Yes, you know more about the subject than others do--good for you. That you feel it necessary to speak out as you have only reveals the height of your hubris and the depth of your snobbery.
Most people will never have a need in their lives to understand these substances even in terms as specific as "non-newtonian." If you expect people to give a damn about something so esoteric, you are setting yourself up for this kind of frustration.
Also, if you had RTFA you would have seen that the author dedicated several paragraphs to non-newtonian fluids. He went into a good bit more detail than you have above.
The author of this article is an asshole who doesn't understand how computers work. To paraphrase him: "I want it, and I want it now. Period. PERIOD." Sometimes even with computer technology as advanced as it is, applications need time to load. A splash screen says "Don't worry Mr. Computer User, this program has successfully launched and is now loading." Without the splash, you'd sit and wonder if the program was loading or not... and then probably launch it a second time before it was finished loading, further slowing the process.
Minority Report, anyone?
John Doe downloaded a song using Limewire. Obviously it was Limewire's fault for allowing John Doe to acces the music.
CNET hosted downloads of Limewire. Obviously it was CNETs fault for allowing John Doe to access Limewire.
Google linked to CNET. Obviously it was Google's fault for allowing John Doe to access CNET.
AT&T delivered Google to John Doe's house via wire. Obvously it was AT&Ts fault for allowing John Doe to access Google.
BHP Billiton produced the wire that allowed AT&T to connect with John Doe. Obviously is was Billiton's fault for allowing John Doe to access AT&T.
Obviously we stem this at the source and make sure copper producers don't do business with the likes of AT&T. This will be the only real and lasting solution.
The US Constitution was designed to prevent people from being subject to the whims of lawmakers a thousand miles away. Powers not specifically delineated therein are to be delegated to the states. This is why the federal government should not be doing 90% of what they do.
You have a valid point--that SOPA has come about in part because millions of individuals willfully disregard the law and disrespect copyright. I can get behind you on this point. However, you must also remember that there is a fundamental difference between stealing something and copying it. Theft involves taking something away from someone else. When you steal an item, the original owner loses possession of that item, and he can no longer gain the benefit of that item's utility. When you copy an item, the owner retains ownership of his copy and can continue to utilize it. In this way, infringing copyright is not the same as stealing. Equating copyright infringement with theft confuses the issue by drawing a parallel which is not entirely valid.
not to nitpick or anything, but although history takes the entire past as a whole, it is also the study of the study of the past. so technically, she may just be speaking of what we know about the planet's past based on what has been studied so far. with that being said, she is correct.
Bingo.
Here's a fun lesson for everyone else: If interpretation (A) is absurd, seek interpretation (B).
It appears obvious to me that the author did not intend to communicate what many of you are attributing to her.
Nice troll.
The words the author used were "has never happened in the history of the planet," not "has never occurred on this planet before." You might want to reacquaint yourself with the various possible meanings of the word "history" before you inaccurately restate what the author has said.
Such a claim is not only suspect, it is ridiculous. That fact alone should cause you to reexamine what the author has written and reconsider your interpretation before you decry her for it.
Or perhaps you didn't read what the author wrote. The author did not use the same words that you are using to communicate her ideas. Obviously no scientist would make a claim such as the claim that you are attributing to her.
What the author meant was: we have no previous record of or analysis suggesting an event of this kind and magnitude.
What you interpreted was: an event of this kind and magnitude has never previously occurred.
I believe you misinterpret her meaning as the parent post does... the word "history" is not usually used to mean simply "the past," but rather refers to available information about past events.
Humanity doesn't have a complete record of planetary events... and the history that we do have does not include an event like this. I do not believe that the author was intending to imply that the phenomenon she witnessed had categorically never previously occurred. She was merely stating that humanity has not, to date, observed such an event.
""The concentration of atmospheric methane increased unto three times in the past two centuries from 0.7 parts per million to 1.7ppm, and in the Arctic to 1.9ppm. That's a huge increase, between two and three times,"
I'm OK with her statement, until this:
"...and this has never happened in the history of the planet," she added.
So there's data for the last 4+ BILLION years with 10-50 year precision so that over a 100-200 year timespan, she can measure the slope of the line (rate in rise over the run of time) precisely enough to say that the slope of the line over the last 200 years is steeper than it has been in any other 200 year period in the last 4 billion years? Sorry, but I find that hard to believe.
This is a classic semantic disconnect: The difficulty you have with the author's statement revolves around the usage and meaning of of the word "history."
According to Wikipedia, "history is the discovery, collection, organization, and presentation of information about past events." Thus, by it's very nature history is a human construct, and constrained by the time period during which humans have been recording data.
When she uses the word "history" in the context of the article, the author is referring to all of the records that are known to exist from the beginning of human record keeping. And so far, in the human era, nothing like this event has ever before been recorded.
If the author had phrased it "in the past" rather than "in the history of the planet," her implication would jibe with the inference you have made about her meaning.
It might be helpful for you to think of the word "history" as equivalent to the phrase "recorded history." It is a redundant phrase as the word "history" denotes "recorded," but the mental exercise could help you to avoid this same semantic dilemma in the future.
Also for completeness: it is true that the word "history" is sometimes used in common language to connote simply "the past," and dictionaries will recognize this--however, in most contexts it is not used this way.