And even if it isn't telemetry in the sense that it is sending information to the mothership, it means it is still dumping debug code somewhere, even if it's just on your hard drive, which means that on every person running the bloody binary, it's dumping debug code to their hard drive, with the potential of security breach and, if nothing else, just making the application slower. It is always bad form to have debug code active in a production environment. Always.
And portability will die. This isn't 1950 anymore, and heck, even in 1950 they understood the need for higher level languages.
As it is, Google is moving away from Dalvik, but what hopefully will come of this is that company's can't expect to attack people who use their function names and symbol tables as infringers. I'd prefer it if APIs weren't copyrightable, but I suppose protecting them under fair use is nearly as good.
It's not about which one of them cares about us, but rather being pragmatic. There are many situations in which the enemy of my enemy is my friend. If Oracle is successful in its claims that APIs can be locked down, there's a world of hurt coming in the US, as any organization or individual that has replicated the function call list of any library (including kernels) could be viewed as having infringed on the original creator of that API. By that I mean just the call list and/or symbol tables, not any actual code.
In this case, Google is fighting an important fight that we should all hope it is successful in. Tomorrow it could be fighting a fight we disagree with.
To simply mindlessly support a company is the worst kind of fanboism, as mindlessly attacking a company's every move is just pointless contrarianism. Even Microsoft fights some fights I agree with, even if I think Redmond is run by some of the most loathsome individuals in the tech history.
Oracle, sadly, is a company whose positions almost always seem to fly in the face of reason, ethics and fair play, but it's at least theoretically possible that some day they may be on the right side of a battle. I dunno, maybe they don't like North Carolina gender bathroom laws or something.
Oblivious to an undocumented telemetry function? Or oblivious to the fact that using Microsoft development tools means your sending out vulnerable binaries that send potentially unknown data to an external server on the Internet?
Imagine writing highly secure software only to find out the fucking compiler is placing a telemetry backend into the binary. Regardless of the purpose or intent out destination, it's bad.
I see there's still enough BB fanboys that one managed to get mod points.
How bitter and pathetic you must be now, Mr. BB Moderator. Well, at least you'll have some extra toilet paper when your shares are only worth wiping your ass with.
Not only that, but trees are not some infinite carbon sink. There comes a point when emissions lead to climactic changes so great that not even vast forests could deal with the excess CO2 in the atmosphere.
The solution is to stop CO2 getting into the atmosphere. If sequestering works, great, though the better solution is to simply move to alternatives that emit a lot less CO2, period. Ending fossil fuel use should be the ultimate goal. If sequestering offers a stopgap measure, so be it, but the long run should be the end of using fossil fuels.
No he's not fucking correct. The Internet has flourished under the US's protection. Deliver it over to some international agency, and the next thing you know it will be cut to ribbons, censorship will become internationalized, and it will fall apart. Simply put, as little as I trust the US government, I trust the UN, the EU, Russia, China, India, Australia, the UK, and well, just about everyone else much much much much much much much less.
If you break the Internet, you won't put it back together again. The US has been a pretty damned good steward. If you want the likes of China to be running the show, then you'll get the Internet you deserve.
Claim 1: Anthropogenic CO2 can't be changing climate, because CO2 is only a trace gas in the atmosphere and the amount produced by humans is dwarfed by the amount from volcanoes and other natural sources. Water vapor is by far the most important greenhouse gas, so changes in CO2 are irrelevant. Although CO2 makes up only 0.04 percent of the atmosphere, that small number says nothing about its significance in climate dynamics. Even at that low concentration, CO2 absorbs infrared radiation and acts as a greenhouse gas, as physicist John Tyndall demonstrated in 1859. The chemist Svante Arrhenius went further in 1896 by estimating the impact of CO2 on the climate; after painstaking hand calculations he concluded that doubling its concentration might cause almost 6 degrees Celsius of warming—an answer not much out of line with recent, far more rigorous computations. Contrary to the contrarians, human activity is by far the largest contributor to the observed increase in atmospheric CO2. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, anthropogenic CO2 amounts to about 30 billion tons annually—more than 130 times as much as volcanoes produce. True, 95 percent of the releases of CO2 to the atmosphere are natural, but natural processes such as plant growth and absorption into the oceans pull the gas back out of the atmosphere and almost precisely offset them, leaving the human additions as a net surplus. Moreover, several sets of experimental measurements, including analyses of the shifting ratio of carbon isotopes in the air, further confirm that fossil-fuel burning and deforestation are the primary reasons that CO2 levels have risen 35 percent since 1832, from 284 parts per million (ppm) to 388 ppm—a remarkable jump to the highest levels seen in millions of years. Contrarians frequently object that water vapor, not CO2, is the most abundant and powerful greenhouse gas; they insist that climate scientists routinely leave it out of their models. The latter is simply untrue: from Arrhenius on, climatologists have incorporated water vapor into their models. In fact, water vapor is why rising CO2 has such a big effect on climate. CO2 absorbs some wavelengths of infrared that water does not so it independently adds heat to the atmosphere. As the temperature rises, more water vapor enters the atmosphere and multiplies CO2's greenhouse effect; the IPCC notes that water vapor (pdf) may “approximately double the increase in the greenhouse effect due to the added CO2 alone.” Nevertheless, within this dynamic, the CO2 remains the main driver (what climatologists call a "forcing") of the greenhouse effect. As NASA climatologist Gavin Schmidt has explained, water vapor enters and leaves the atmosphere much more quickly than CO2, and tends to preserve a fairly constant level of relative humidity, which caps off its greenhouse effect. Climatologists therefore categorize water vapor as a feedback rather than a forcing factor. (Contrarians who don't see water vapor in climate models are looking for it in the wrong place.) Because of CO2's inescapable greenhouse effect, contrarians holding out for a natural explanation for current global warming need to explain why, in their scenarios, CO2 is not compounding the problem.
A small percentage over something as large as the earth's atmosphere has a significant t effect. No matter how you try to deny physics and reality, it's measurable and it's happening. You're just a fantasist and a moron
Edge is horrible. It has to be the most featureless, unstable piece of shit seen in the browser world in years. I'd rather use a nightly build of Firefox than that worthless hunk of junk.
By which point the victims have spent tens of thousands of dollars. This is a very serious problem, and one that has significant costs for the economy. If there is also corruption involved, then why isn't the judge and his son now being interviewed by state of Federal law enforcement? There's no way any of this ethical, and almost certainly it has to be illegal.
CO2 absorbs UV from solar radiation, and re-emits it as IR. This causes a net increase in temperature in the lower atmosphere. This is a simple physical fact. The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more energy in the lower atmosphere. Unless you have some magic heat sink which dumps the additional back into space, AGW is inevitable where CO2 levels are increases. This is basic thermodynamics, and the properties of CO2 have been known for over a century.
I'm sorry this makes you want to deny reality, but the Universe wasn't designed just so humans could wantonly increase the amount of CO2 into the atmosphere without side-effects. The universe doesn't give one flying fuck about our economic system
Which is to be expected, since technically Snowden is (not that what he did was wrong). But if accusations of sexual impropriety and abuse was the modus operandi of the US government when it came to those who revealed its secrets, then why has Snowden not been the victim of such an operation?
Is it remotely possible that people like Assange and Applebaum may simply be unpleasant people who do bad things?
Slashdot Mirror
And even if it isn't telemetry in the sense that it is sending information to the mothership, it means it is still dumping debug code somewhere, even if it's just on your hard drive, which means that on every person running the bloody binary, it's dumping debug code to their hard drive, with the potential of security breach and, if nothing else, just making the application slower. It is always bad form to have debug code active in a production environment. Always.
And portability will die. This isn't 1950 anymore, and heck, even in 1950 they understood the need for higher level languages.
As it is, Google is moving away from Dalvik, but what hopefully will come of this is that company's can't expect to attack people who use their function names and symbol tables as infringers. I'd prefer it if APIs weren't copyrightable, but I suppose protecting them under fair use is nearly as good.
It's not about which one of them cares about us, but rather being pragmatic. There are many situations in which the enemy of my enemy is my friend. If Oracle is successful in its claims that APIs can be locked down, there's a world of hurt coming in the US, as any organization or individual that has replicated the function call list of any library (including kernels) could be viewed as having infringed on the original creator of that API. By that I mean just the call list and/or symbol tables, not any actual code.
In this case, Google is fighting an important fight that we should all hope it is successful in. Tomorrow it could be fighting a fight we disagree with.
To simply mindlessly support a company is the worst kind of fanboism, as mindlessly attacking a company's every move is just pointless contrarianism. Even Microsoft fights some fights I agree with, even if I think Redmond is run by some of the most loathsome individuals in the tech history.
Oracle, sadly, is a company whose positions almost always seem to fly in the face of reason, ethics and fair play, but it's at least theoretically possible that some day they may be on the right side of a battle. I dunno, maybe they don't like North Carolina gender bathroom laws or something.
Oblivious to an undocumented telemetry function? Or oblivious to the fact that using Microsoft development tools means your sending out vulnerable binaries that send potentially unknown data to an external server on the Internet?
Yup. Apparently Microsoft's new culture involves the same old astroturfing practices.
If it's telemetry it's bad. Period.
Imagine writing highly secure software only to find out the fucking compiler is placing a telemetry backend into the binary. Regardless of the purpose or intent out destination, it's bad.
Then get to it.
While the dialog is gibberish, it is largely grammatically. Usage is a bit abnormal, but it's not really random. I found it quirky and funny.
The song was a hoot. No worse than some movie songs I've heard.
Beats the hell out of Michael Bay.
I see there's still enough BB fanboys that one managed to get mod points.
How bitter and pathetic you must be now, Mr. BB Moderator. Well, at least you'll have some extra toilet paper when your shares are only worth wiping your ass with.
The Saudis are creating the largest sovereign wealth fund in history. They know just as well as anyone that the Age of Oil is coming to an end.
Not only that, but trees are not some infinite carbon sink. There comes a point when emissions lead to climactic changes so great that not even vast forests could deal with the excess CO2 in the atmosphere.
The solution is to stop CO2 getting into the atmosphere. If sequestering works, great, though the better solution is to simply move to alternatives that emit a lot less CO2, period. Ending fossil fuel use should be the ultimate goal. If sequestering offers a stopgap measure, so be it, but the long run should be the end of using fossil fuels.
Delusional investors.
At this point, it's more like throwing a handful of dirt on the casket.
I'm expecting the BB zombie soon enough, when Chen tries to use what's left of the patent portfolio to turn the company into a patent troll.
No he's not fucking correct. The Internet has flourished under the US's protection. Deliver it over to some international agency, and the next thing you know it will be cut to ribbons, censorship will become internationalized, and it will fall apart. Simply put, as little as I trust the US government, I trust the UN, the EU, Russia, China, India, Australia, the UK, and well, just about everyone else much much much much much much much less.
If you break the Internet, you won't put it back together again. The US has been a pretty damned good steward. If you want the likes of China to be running the show, then you'll get the Internet you deserve.
They can do anything they want, but as soon as they want to do name resolution outside their root servers, they're going to have a problem.
http://www.scientificamerican....
Claim 1: Anthropogenic CO2 can't be changing climate, because CO2 is only a trace gas in the atmosphere and the amount produced by humans is dwarfed by the amount from volcanoes and other natural sources. Water vapor is by far the most important greenhouse gas, so changes in CO2 are irrelevant.
Although CO2 makes up only 0.04 percent of the atmosphere, that small number says nothing about its significance in climate dynamics. Even at that low concentration, CO2 absorbs infrared radiation and acts as a greenhouse gas, as physicist John Tyndall demonstrated in 1859. The chemist Svante Arrhenius went further in 1896 by estimating the impact of CO2 on the climate; after painstaking hand calculations he concluded that doubling its concentration might cause almost 6 degrees Celsius of warming—an answer not much out of line with recent, far more rigorous computations.
Contrary to the contrarians, human activity is by far the largest contributor to the observed increase in atmospheric CO2. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, anthropogenic CO2 amounts to about 30 billion tons annually—more than 130 times as much as volcanoes produce. True, 95 percent of the releases of CO2 to the atmosphere are natural, but natural processes such as plant growth and absorption into the oceans pull the gas back out of the atmosphere and almost precisely offset them, leaving the human additions as a net surplus. Moreover, several sets of experimental measurements, including analyses of the shifting ratio of carbon isotopes in the air, further confirm that fossil-fuel burning and deforestation are the primary reasons that CO2 levels have risen 35 percent since 1832, from 284 parts per million (ppm) to 388 ppm—a remarkable jump to the highest levels seen in millions of years.
Contrarians frequently object that water vapor, not CO2, is the most abundant and powerful greenhouse gas; they insist that climate scientists routinely leave it out of their models. The latter is simply untrue: from Arrhenius on, climatologists have incorporated water vapor into their models. In fact, water vapor is why rising CO2 has such a big effect on climate. CO2 absorbs some wavelengths of infrared that water does not so it independently adds heat to the atmosphere. As the temperature rises, more water vapor enters the atmosphere and multiplies CO2's greenhouse effect; the IPCC notes that water vapor (pdf) may “approximately double the increase in the greenhouse effect due to the added CO2 alone.”
Nevertheless, within this dynamic, the CO2 remains the main driver (what climatologists call a "forcing") of the greenhouse effect. As NASA climatologist Gavin Schmidt has explained, water vapor enters and leaves the atmosphere much more quickly than CO2, and tends to preserve a fairly constant level of relative humidity, which caps off its greenhouse effect. Climatologists therefore categorize water vapor as a feedback rather than a forcing factor. (Contrarians who don't see water vapor in climate models are looking for it in the wrong place.)
Because of CO2's inescapable greenhouse effect, contrarians holding out for a natural explanation for current global warming need to explain why, in their scenarios, CO2 is not compounding the problem.
Perhaps i could quit stalking me APK
A small percentage over something as large as the earth's atmosphere has a significant t effect. No matter how you try to deny physics and reality, it's measurable and it's happening. You're just a fantasist and a moron
Why do you follow me around making this post. I actually accept AGW.
JEsus Christ, this shill never fucking stops.
Edge is horrible. It has to be the most featureless, unstable piece of shit seen in the browser world in years. I'd rather use a nightly build of Firefox than that worthless hunk of junk.
By which point the victims have spent tens of thousands of dollars. This is a very serious problem, and one that has significant costs for the economy. If there is also corruption involved, then why isn't the judge and his son now being interviewed by state of Federal law enforcement? There's no way any of this ethical, and almost certainly it has to be illegal.
CO2 absorbs UV from solar radiation, and re-emits it as IR. This causes a net increase in temperature in the lower atmosphere. This is a simple physical fact. The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more energy in the lower atmosphere. Unless you have some magic heat sink which dumps the additional back into space, AGW is inevitable where CO2 levels are increases. This is basic thermodynamics, and the properties of CO2 have been known for over a century.
I'm sorry this makes you want to deny reality, but the Universe wasn't designed just so humans could wantonly increase the amount of CO2 into the atmosphere without side-effects. The universe doesn't give one flying fuck about our economic system
Which is to be expected, since technically Snowden is (not that what he did was wrong). But if accusations of sexual impropriety and abuse was the modus operandi of the US government when it came to those who revealed its secrets, then why has Snowden not been the victim of such an operation?
Is it remotely possible that people like Assange and Applebaum may simply be unpleasant people who do bad things?