Yeah, it is terrible that Microsoft follows an open W3C standard, an honor-standard, the way the standard specifies, while it is perfectly OK that Google circumvents the same standard. I will never get the zealotry of some/.ers.
Here is a simple question you should ask when you get services. Am I paying for it? If the answer to that question is "No", then you are the product being sold. For Google, you are not a customer, you are a product. The advertising industry is the customer.
The problem in Microsoft's case is that they seem incapable of dumping what they have and doing a complete rewrite
That is mostly what they have done, hence the dropping of a number of features that a lot of businesses rely on, and therefore the slow move to IE8 and IE9 in the enterprise. They simply can't since it will break a whole host of internal apps for which there is no longer any source code, and the developer retired to Maui years ago.
please provide a kid friendly alt for baked lays that is readily available at a normal supermarket for around the same cost
Easy. I can even do it better. I can provide an alternative that is FREE, available ANYWHERE and which is significantly healthier than baked lays. One full serving of nothing at all. Chips have no place in a kids meal. They are extremely unhealthy.
Do not try and pretend scientists and experts agree with you
I do not have to pretend. The IWC Scientific Committee has recommended a limited culling of certain types of whales since 1991 (that is more than 20 years) but the IWC choses, for political reasons to ignore its own scientific committee.
Sadly the IWC is controlled (politically, not by vote) by the fringe lunatics in the environmental lobby, and is therefore incapable of making scientifically sound decisions. I'd rather have Japan and Norway ignore the likes of the Paul Watson nutcase and maintain scientifically responsible whaling.
As to the balancing existing vs introducing new species, I fail to see the significant difference. We hunted slow-reproducing whale stock close to extinction, allowing competing species to move in and monopolize the resources these whales need. Culling the competing species until the slow-reproducing ones recover from our slaughter doesn't seem that different from a rabbit-proof fence. We are the ones that caused the Minke population to grow to the point where it will out-compete the larger and slower reproducing species. This would not have happened naturally since they basically have no predators (we have stopped hunting Blue Whale, and we are not likely to resume for a while at least). Making the Minke population to grow as fast as it does (we caused that by removing competition) is equivalent to introducing a predator that otherwise would never have entered the scene.
So ultimately the only way to allow populations to reach natural levels is to leave them the fuck alone, culling only makes the problem worse
OK, so we'll stop all the efforts of keeping the indigenous animals of Australia alive. I disagree with you, but then again, so does most of the people working on the problem. I guess we are all idiots.
I get your point. Man can decimate a species so that other species come in and take their place, and then man should do nothing to prevent the second part. I would rather have the blue whale, but I understand you don't think we should try to prevent it from going extinct due to our bad actions in the past.
I gather you are completely against the rabbit fence in Australia too then. Just let the indigenous species in that continent go extinct.
We all have different values. I have no problem with mindfully, and with scientific backing, trying to rectify the errors we have made in the past.
I'm not, are you responding to different posts than you are reading?
why is writing about abandoned towns due to desertication in the past dumb
Because it has nothing to do with AGW.
No I was not and it is fucking obvious that I was not
Ah, so the abandonment of towns due to bad growing practices, and not at all related to AGW was relevant how? Towns have not been abandoned due to global warming. Why bring it up?
Why do you think you deserve anything other than contempt in return?
I oversimplified for one reason, and one reason only. Your original comment was so amazingly wrong, and dumb, and filled with nothing but your own ignorance, that there was not that much more to say. In large scale food production in green houses it is common to increase the CO2 levels to well above 1000ppm (three times the current atmospheric level or more) to promote increased growth while reducing the need for irrigation. That is why, when you see elevated CO2 levels in the earths history, it is normally coupled with very high levels of plant growth.
Counter probably to common sense, there is no reason to assume that increased temperature leads to drought. Increased temperatures leads to increased evaporation and precipitation. In 2010-2011 for example, the increase in evaporation (and the resulting drop in sea levels) lead to increased precipitation in (among other places) Australia and central and southern Africa. Places that traditionally are rather dry. Texas never saw an increase, but that can be put squarely in Perry's lap. He should have made his prayers out to some rain gods, not to a vindictive little shit like the abrahamic god.
There's plenty of ghost towns around the world where there used to be farming communities but then for various reasons it became too difficult to produce anything in that location
Wow, now that has to be the dumbest comment in this discussion so far. You are trying to conflate things like the dust bowl to global warming. Even my nine month old has more sense than that. Don't even try if that is the best you can come up with. Just ask for a brain transplant. A retarded monkey would suffice as a donor.
It is good to see that you are so full of excellent arguments. I recommend you next compare me to Hitler, to show what quality of argumentation you really can do.
Wow, so no arguments whatsoever? Not a single one? Could you point to some factual errors?
Undisputed:
Plants grow faster, using less water, when we increase the CO2 levels to from 1000 to 5000 ppm. Here is some info for the curious ones.
Increased temperature means increased evaporation and thereby increased precipitation. We can see this in numbers from NASA where the evaporation/precipitation over land is used to explain, for example, the reduction in sea levels from 2010 to 2011. In the NASA data we can also see where the increase in precipitation has come, for example over Australia and central and southern Africa. Places that really need it. Not in Texas though, but that's the fault of Rick Perry.
An increase in food prices will have a negative effect on fighting off hunger. So will reduced investments in poor countries as we have seen since 2008.
The focus on ethanol production, and the use of staple food stuffs for ethanol production has had a hand in pushing food prices up over the past few years. The price of corn (maize) and rice has gone up 10% in some areas. This means less food for poor people.
The very steady and what looked like an un-reversible trend, of less and less people dying of starvation in the world took a turn in the wrong direction towards the end of the last decade. The price increases in staple foods meant less food for the poorest. It meant that a very, very good trend was reversed. It meant that people died who would not have died had it not been for the price increases.
Once again, nature does a great job of balancing populations
Not when man, unthinkingly, gets involved. Like with whales, where we hunted the biggest ones, the ones with the slowest population re-growth. Until we have un-done what we did, keeping the faster reproducing species that have recovered nicely under control is paramount. That's how we un-do some of what we done.
That's just idiocy... Good luck growing your crops in the middle of the desert with no irragation
One of the observed effects of the measured increase in temperature has been an increase in precipitation in arid areas. This should not come as a surprise, increased temperature means increased evaporation, that means increased precipitation (generally, it also means the atmosphere can hold more water, but the observed effect is increased precipitation - see NASA and decreasing sea levels). The maps linked to other places in this discussion shows that precipitation to hit, for example, Australia and the central and southern part of Africa. Two of the driest places on earth. It didn't hit Texas, but I think that is the fault of Rick Perry.
To keep plants warm enough so that they don't freeze
You are right, that is a very important function of the green house. Here is some some reading material on CO2 in green houses and why increasing CO2 levels to 1000ppm or more is a good thing if you want good growth while above 5000ppm can have a detrimental effect on both the grower and the grown.
That's because those death exist entirely in your imagination
Not even close. The number of people starving to death has been steadily dropping for decades. They get an up-swing when economic times are hard since that means reduced investments etc (NIKE and Adidas and their "children populated factories" have saved more people from starvation than all the worlds aid). The other thing that will make the starvation numbers go the wrong way is when food prices go up. Particularly with staple foods like corn and rice. The ethanol craze has driven these prices up significantly which means that the fight on starvation basically stalled around 2008 and took a turn the wrong way. That is people dying that otherwise would have lived.
Actually his argument is identical to every scientific argument ever proposed
Theory is a little strong, hypothesis perhaps.
you use the ones that do the best job of explaining the observations
The problem is that there are no models that do a good (or even mediocre) job of explaining the observations. The matter is rather complicated and the models fall apart as the time-span they are trying to describe increases. The only way, for example, to make the models encompass the Little Ice Age is to say it never happened, which is a little on the un-scientific side.
Actually, the changes will have minor negative consequences
Really. Says who? A significant turn towards bio-fuel, for example, will starve the world population. Sure, it would be good if we could do this properly using, for example, wood chips, bio waste etc. We can't. Most of the processes add to the CO2 emissions, they do not reduce them.
It is great that we try to become oil independent, but gasoline is so far the most CO2 efficient way of transporting lots of people. Stop that transportation and you will see an economic down-turn that you can not even begin to imagine. With a significant surge in starvation. Remember, the drastic reduction in starvation rates we have seen over the past few decades are caused more or less entirely by increased international trade. That means travel and transportation. Not good for CO2 emissions but very good for people who would otherwise starve to death.
Sadly, whenever the warming nuts (and a significant portion of them are nuts) talk about solutions, they always include transportation, and they always harp on alternative fuel cars. That is insane. Cars are not a significant problem when it comes to CO2, and all current "solutions" to the car emission "problem" have the draw-back that they emit more CO2 than using petrochemical fuels. That makes the argument insane. Cars and planes are not part of the problem, and can consequently not be part of the solution. Energy production is the problem, but try to argue for nuclear energy production and see the entire green-left-wing go insane shouting you down.
Here are some of the things that are not part of the solution either: Wind power (it emits more CO2 per watt than even coal), Solar power (see wind), reducing the number of flights (will not have an downward pushing effect on temperature), cutting coal it now seems, since the particulate pollution from coal burning has at least as much of a negative impact on temperature as coal CO2 emission has a positive impact.
The list is long of "solutions" proposed by AGW proponents (note, I do not say there is no AGW) that have no effect or even a detrimental effect on solving the problems they want solved.
No, it actually isn't. His argument is based on models that try to fit the data. We believe those models have some validity, but we also do know that they are deeply flawed. For example, they do not, to a significant degree, fit the data collected. They are working hard to make the models better, but nobody would argue today that the models are accurate to any significant degree.
Please note, I am not saying there is no warming, there seem to be. I am just saying that the models that are to explain said warming are flawed. That is not particularly earth shattering.
Wow. I like your ability to completely move off the point and start with ad-hominem attacks. Why don't you claim that I am the spawn of Hitler at the same time, and prove to the world that there are calculator wrist watches with more intelligence than you?
Slashdot Mirror
Rubbish.
Frankly, as an approach to a security engineering problem, P3P is pretty bad
That's like saying - as an approach to an airplane, a 1969 VW Bug is pretty bad. P3P is not designed to solve a security problem.
Yeah, it is terrible that Microsoft follows an open W3C standard, an honor-standard, the way the standard specifies, while it is perfectly OK that Google circumvents the same standard. I will never get the zealotry of some /.ers.
You obviously didn't.
If Microsoft follows the W3C standards then that is wrong too?
Here is a simple question you should ask when you get services. Am I paying for it? If the answer to that question is "No", then you are the product being sold. For Google, you are not a customer, you are a product. The advertising industry is the customer.
I tend to think it is more practical to judge a company on what it does, not what it did ten years ago.
The problem in Microsoft's case is that they seem incapable of dumping what they have and doing a complete rewrite
That is mostly what they have done, hence the dropping of a number of features that a lot of businesses rely on, and therefore the slow move to IE8 and IE9 in the enterprise. They simply can't since it will break a whole host of internal apps for which there is no longer any source code, and the developer retired to Maui years ago.
and eat memory
Modded "Interesting". Sigh. It's dumb. Someone needs to read something about software testing.
A reasonable quantity of potato chips isn't unhealthy
I totally agree, a reasonable quantity of baked chips is not unhealthy. The reasonable quantity being zero.
please provide a kid friendly alt for baked lays that is readily available at a normal supermarket for around the same cost
Easy. I can even do it better. I can provide an alternative that is FREE, available ANYWHERE and which is significantly healthier than baked lays. One full serving of nothing at all. Chips have no place in a kids meal. They are extremely unhealthy.
Do not try and pretend scientists and experts agree with you
I do not have to pretend. The IWC Scientific Committee has recommended a limited culling of certain types of whales since 1991 (that is more than 20 years) but the IWC choses, for political reasons to ignore its own scientific committee.
Sadly the IWC is controlled (politically, not by vote) by the fringe lunatics in the environmental lobby, and is therefore incapable of making scientifically sound decisions. I'd rather have Japan and Norway ignore the likes of the Paul Watson nutcase and maintain scientifically responsible whaling.
As to the balancing existing vs introducing new species, I fail to see the significant difference. We hunted slow-reproducing whale stock close to extinction, allowing competing species to move in and monopolize the resources these whales need. Culling the competing species until the slow-reproducing ones recover from our slaughter doesn't seem that different from a rabbit-proof fence. We are the ones that caused the Minke population to grow to the point where it will out-compete the larger and slower reproducing species. This would not have happened naturally since they basically have no predators (we have stopped hunting Blue Whale, and we are not likely to resume for a while at least). Making the Minke population to grow as fast as it does (we caused that by removing competition) is equivalent to introducing a predator that otherwise would never have entered the scene.
So ultimately the only way to allow populations to reach natural levels is to leave them the fuck alone, culling only makes the problem worse
OK, so we'll stop all the efforts of keeping the indigenous animals of Australia alive. I disagree with you, but then again, so does most of the people working on the problem. I guess we are all idiots.
I get your point. Man can decimate a species so that other species come in and take their place, and then man should do nothing to prevent the second part. I would rather have the blue whale, but I understand you don't think we should try to prevent it from going extinct due to our bad actions in the past.
I gather you are completely against the rabbit fence in Australia too then. Just let the indigenous species in that continent go extinct.
We all have different values. I have no problem with mindfully, and with scientific backing, trying to rectify the errors we have made in the past.
Why are you pretending that CLIMATE
I'm not, are you responding to different posts than you are reading?
why is writing about abandoned towns due to desertication in the past dumb
Because it has nothing to do with AGW.
No I was not and it is fucking obvious that I was not
Ah, so the abandonment of towns due to bad growing practices, and not at all related to AGW was relevant how? Towns have not been abandoned due to global warming. Why bring it up?
Why do you think you deserve anything other than contempt in return?
I oversimplified for one reason, and one reason only. Your original comment was so amazingly wrong, and dumb, and filled with nothing but your own ignorance, that there was not that much more to say. In large scale food production in green houses it is common to increase the CO2 levels to well above 1000ppm (three times the current atmospheric level or more) to promote increased growth while reducing the need for irrigation. That is why, when you see elevated CO2 levels in the earths history, it is normally coupled with very high levels of plant growth.
Counter probably to common sense, there is no reason to assume that increased temperature leads to drought. Increased temperatures leads to increased evaporation and precipitation. In 2010-2011 for example, the increase in evaporation (and the resulting drop in sea levels) lead to increased precipitation in (among other places) Australia and central and southern Africa. Places that traditionally are rather dry. Texas never saw an increase, but that can be put squarely in Perry's lap. He should have made his prayers out to some rain gods, not to a vindictive little shit like the abrahamic god.
There's plenty of ghost towns around the world where there used to be farming communities but then for various reasons it became too difficult to produce anything in that location
Wow, now that has to be the dumbest comment in this discussion so far. You are trying to conflate things like the dust bowl to global warming. Even my nine month old has more sense than that. Don't even try if that is the best you can come up with. Just ask for a brain transplant. A retarded monkey would suffice as a donor.
It is good to see that you are so full of excellent arguments. I recommend you next compare me to Hitler, to show what quality of argumentation you really can do.
Wow, so no arguments whatsoever? Not a single one? Could you point to some factual errors?
Undisputed:
The focus on ethanol production, and the use of staple food stuffs for ethanol production has had a hand in pushing food prices up over the past few years. The price of corn (maize) and rice has gone up 10% in some areas. This means less food for poor people.
The very steady and what looked like an un-reversible trend, of less and less people dying of starvation in the world took a turn in the wrong direction towards the end of the last decade. The price increases in staple foods meant less food for the poorest. It meant that a very, very good trend was reversed. It meant that people died who would not have died had it not been for the price increases.
Once again, nature does a great job of balancing populations
Not when man, unthinkingly, gets involved. Like with whales, where we hunted the biggest ones, the ones with the slowest population re-growth. Until we have un-done what we did, keeping the faster reproducing species that have recovered nicely under control is paramount. That's how we un-do some of what we done.
That's just idiocy ... Good luck growing your crops in the middle of the desert with no irragation
One of the observed effects of the measured increase in temperature has been an increase in precipitation in arid areas. This should not come as a surprise, increased temperature means increased evaporation, that means increased precipitation (generally, it also means the atmosphere can hold more water, but the observed effect is increased precipitation - see NASA and decreasing sea levels). The maps linked to other places in this discussion shows that precipitation to hit, for example, Australia and the central and southern part of Africa. Two of the driest places on earth. It didn't hit Texas, but I think that is the fault of Rick Perry.
To keep plants warm enough so that they don't freeze
You are right, that is a very important function of the green house. Here is some some reading material on CO2 in green houses and why increasing CO2 levels to 1000ppm or more is a good thing if you want good growth while above 5000ppm can have a detrimental effect on both the grower and the grown.
That's because those death exist entirely in your imagination
Not even close. The number of people starving to death has been steadily dropping for decades. They get an up-swing when economic times are hard since that means reduced investments etc (NIKE and Adidas and their "children populated factories" have saved more people from starvation than all the worlds aid). The other thing that will make the starvation numbers go the wrong way is when food prices go up. Particularly with staple foods like corn and rice. The ethanol craze has driven these prices up significantly which means that the fight on starvation basically stalled around 2008 and took a turn the wrong way. That is people dying that otherwise would have lived.
Actually his argument is identical to every scientific argument ever proposed
Theory is a little strong, hypothesis perhaps.
you use the ones that do the best job of explaining the observations
The problem is that there are no models that do a good (or even mediocre) job of explaining the observations. The matter is rather complicated and the models fall apart as the time-span they are trying to describe increases. The only way, for example, to make the models encompass the Little Ice Age is to say it never happened, which is a little on the un-scientific side.
Actually, the changes will have minor negative consequences
Really. Says who? A significant turn towards bio-fuel, for example, will starve the world population. Sure, it would be good if we could do this properly using, for example, wood chips, bio waste etc. We can't. Most of the processes add to the CO2 emissions, they do not reduce them.
It is great that we try to become oil independent, but gasoline is so far the most CO2 efficient way of transporting lots of people. Stop that transportation and you will see an economic down-turn that you can not even begin to imagine. With a significant surge in starvation. Remember, the drastic reduction in starvation rates we have seen over the past few decades are caused more or less entirely by increased international trade. That means travel and transportation. Not good for CO2 emissions but very good for people who would otherwise starve to death.
Sadly, whenever the warming nuts (and a significant portion of them are nuts) talk about solutions, they always include transportation, and they always harp on alternative fuel cars. That is insane. Cars are not a significant problem when it comes to CO2, and all current "solutions" to the car emission "problem" have the draw-back that they emit more CO2 than using petrochemical fuels. That makes the argument insane. Cars and planes are not part of the problem, and can consequently not be part of the solution. Energy production is the problem, but try to argue for nuclear energy production and see the entire green-left-wing go insane shouting you down.
Here are some of the things that are not part of the solution either: Wind power (it emits more CO2 per watt than even coal), Solar power (see wind), reducing the number of flights (will not have an downward pushing effect on temperature), cutting coal it now seems, since the particulate pollution from coal burning has at least as much of a negative impact on temperature as coal CO2 emission has a positive impact.
The list is long of "solutions" proposed by AGW proponents (note, I do not say there is no AGW) that have no effect or even a detrimental effect on solving the problems they want solved.
His argument is based on evidence and data
No, it actually isn't. His argument is based on models that try to fit the data. We believe those models have some validity, but we also do know that they are deeply flawed. For example, they do not, to a significant degree, fit the data collected. They are working hard to make the models better, but nobody would argue today that the models are accurate to any significant degree.
Please note, I am not saying there is no warming, there seem to be. I am just saying that the models that are to explain said warming are flawed. That is not particularly earth shattering.
Wow. I like your ability to completely move off the point and start with ad-hominem attacks. Why don't you claim that I am the spawn of Hitler at the same time, and prove to the world that there are calculator wrist watches with more intelligence than you?
So you considering counting hairs in my nose to be more useful than reading your posts and listening to your message?
I think he was referring to the "forming a reply" bit.