That really is the situation though, and it's why in recent years Norway has slowed it's whaling industry
Sure, but is this a good thing? The minke whale has a high reproduction rate and competes with other (slow reproduction) whale species. Norway has been hunting the minke exclusively. The secession of that hunt will mean that the minke will out-compete other species, driving those to extinction. Human hunters are the ultimate cause of this, we un-balanced the situation. We should also carefully monitor, culling where needed, the situation until a better balance can be achieved. A hysterical "all whaling must be banned" will not accomplish this. Balance will eventually be reached, but one where a number of the slower reproducing species will be extinct.
There is a reason the US is no longer banning Norwegian salmon. They did so based on the fact that Norway hunts seals. Seals reproduce very fast. It only took a couple of years for the situation with no culling to move from "interesting" to "disastrous". Thankfully both Norway and Iceland now cull the seal population.
The problem is Japan, and a tiny handful of other countries (i.e. Iceland) think they're fucking special and somehow have a right to carry on whaling
What a load of cluless rubbish. The whale species (you did know there was more than one, right) hunted by Japan, Norway, Iceland and a few others, are not in any way, shape or form threatened by extinction. Haven't been for decades. In fact, the science committee in the IWC has repeatedly stated that some limited culling of these particular whale types should be re-started so as to maintain a balance. If the number of whales grow too much it can also have a detrimental effect on the environment. We could all see what happened when the morons in the "don't kill the really cute animals" organizations made Iceland and Norway stop seal hunting. Millions of starving seals drowned in fish nets all along the northern European coast. Interestingly, the highly paid politicians in the IWC repeatedly ignore the scientific point of view due to the immense pressure from clueless environmentalist like Paul Watson - an man who only a tiny step up from the Somali pirates.
Sorry dude, but scientifically, you and Paul Watson are wrong. Culling of these particular species of whale is not only responsible, it is crucial that we do so. Ask the scientists involved, not the nut-case anti-whaling lunatics.
Indeed, an increase in CO2 will impact the third world. Particularly very dry places. They will become more fertile. More plants will grow. More plants is the same as more food. There is a reason we call the increase in CO2 the "green house effect". That is the effect it has. Now, what is the purpose of a green house? It is to make food grow better and faster with less earth and less water. Seems like a good idea to me. I like people to stay alive and well fed.
On the other hand we have the absurdity of bio fuels that the green lobby is pushing. This has already killed a lot of poor people. It has stalled a trend that has been positive for decades, where less and less people die of starvation. Food prices has gone up significantly in the past few years, partly due to the fact that farmers make more money growing corn for bio fuel than they do for growing food. An increase in food prices means a reverse in the trend of fewer and fewer people dying of starvation.
The green lobby wants us to take drastic action today to stave off a potential and theoretical problem in the future. The fact that the action they are demanding is killing people today (that is knowledge, not a "ma happen") seems to hold no relevance.
Given all that, come up with a way for the planetary temperature to rise WITHOUT using the significant increases in GHGs and DOESN'T violate the laws of thermodynamics
Ah, yes, the God of The Gaps. Your argument is identical to the "we don't know how it was done. so God done it" argument of the creationist crowd (whatever they call them selves this week). It's a bad argument, and it should certainly not be used to make drastic, and very, very expensive change.
We (should) all know that we have a very tenuous understanding of the mechanisms involved. Still, scientists and "green" politicians demand extremely drastic changes, changes that we know have very serious and negative consequences. Isn't that a rather bad thing. We don't need to imagine what will happen if the green nuts get their will and we start putting food into our gas tanks. The price of food will go up, and we will stall or even reverse the extremely positive trend of fewer and fewer people starving to death every year. Increasing food prices as a result of hare-brained ideas like bio-fuel has already driven up food prices. The increase in food prices has already killed people. In other words, based on some very tenuous data we have already started to kill people. That doesn't seem rational to me.
Yes, he does. His "stats" are meaningless. It is not the number of dead per year. What if only 17 people took part in this over the past 50 years. It is the relative number of deaths compared to the number of participants in the endeavor. 17 seems rather high given the low number of astronauts and the low number of trips.
Lives lost per year is an utterly meaningless measurement. What if only 17 people took part in exploration over those 50 years? That would have been pretty bad. The number of lives lost in this particular exploration seems rather high. The number of astronauts and the number of trips is vanishingly small compared to the number of people participating in (for example) the exploration of the West. Yes, we have to expect losses, but that is too high.
Of course Foxconn may be better than the alternatives
More than that, Foxonn and friends are the reason that China, India and other poor countries are, I was going to say slowly, but it isn't slow, it is fast, reducing their poverty, hunger, starvation. The number of people dying of starvation has been steadily dropping since the start of the industrial revolution, but over the past few decades it has been dropping really, really fast. The UN thinks that starvation as a systemic problem outside of Africa is going to be gone in a few decades.
None of the reduction in poverty, the reduction in starvation around the world was caused by AID programs. In fact, government AID programs have generally exacerbated the poverty problems in the third world. Basically all of the positive development we have seen is caused by foreign (and later domestic) investment in third world countries. You know. NIKE. Adidas. Shoes. Foxconn. Those guys. The government AID programs have only made things worse. Much worse. Musicians doing AID concerts have added to the problems. NIKE having children hand-stitching AIRs in poor countries have been a real benefit. Save millions and millions from starvation.
He didn't. Did your parents routinely bang you on your head with a hammer through your childhood? Sounds like it. Yes, $6K might seem low to you, but if that is well above the national average at the place where the person making $6K lives, then $6K isn't bad. Salaries are only comparable in relationship to the cost of living. Absolute dollar amounts are meaningless.
No, you don't. You boycott the biggest guy. Only. He has the muscle to effect change. The little guy (anyone who makes WP 7 phones) it has no effect. If you boycott everybody it won't work since you won't be able to focus your boycotting effort. Go after the big guy. Once he makes the supplier clean up his act, the little guys are improved automatically and the price of smart phones increase by 3%.
Really. So how do you explain the huge gains in almost every aspect of a Chinese persons life? I know, these Foxconn working conditions are bad, but here is a clue for you - before Foxconn, it was worse much worse. China has steadily been improving for quite a while, and faster than many of the poor countries it was on par with 50-60 years ago.
Here is the easy answer, and it should be obvious, but I am not sure that you'll understand. If you boycott Apple, and Apple quits its relationship with Foxconn, or threatens to do so, it matters to Foxconn. Apple is an important customer. Pushing Apple has the possibility of making a difference. On the other hand you could boycott the LG Windows Phone 7 phone, which might also be created by Foxconn. This would make LG threaten to take all four phones ordered for 2012 off the table. How much do you think Foxconn would care?
You push the big guy because what the big guy does matters. No need to push the little guy, once you push the big guy, things around the little guy improves as a side-effect. Pushing Apple can make a difference. Pushing "Joe's home-electronics shop" is not going to make Foxconn worried.
when matketspeak creeps into the comment you can be damned sure the post is coming from Redmond
Yeah, it must be. That's why, more or less each time I have said I prefer the Windows Phone over Apple or Android products, after having used them all, and using them all regularly too (I also develop for mobile, no longer for Apple) I am accused of being a paid shill. I have been to Seattle twice in my life. Never anywhere near One Microsoft Way.
why are you so focused on dicks?
Most people who are so in love with something as abstract as a football team, a computing platform or a country for that matter, that they can't stand to hear others say bad things about whatever it is they have an infatuation with, or even good things about a "competitor", suffer from serious problems with self confidence. For men, and this is/. after all, in popular lingo, severe self-confidence problems is quite frequently referred to in colorful terms as a reproductive organ size issue. Hence my phrasing.
So the fact that anyone who says anything nice about an MS product or action is instantly called a paid shill or modded "troll" on/. is not something you have a problem with? OK. Hope you get well soon.
Incidentally, the WP7 market share is just a tiny bit lower than the Apple Macintosh market share was a few years ago, with a significantly larger potential market. Was the Apple market of a handful of years ago dead and without developers?
Even if you can take an Android application and run it through a meat grinder to make it into C#,
You can't. The GUI stuff is platform specific, and you can not "meat grind" Android GUI stuff into XAML (at least not currently). Still, the majority of code is non-GUI, and that will port easily. Then you add the GUI specifics, and you have taken advantage of the improved WP7 GUI.
You are right that there is currently little incentive for developers to be on WP7 though, and still more than 50 000 apps have been developed. Not bad for a platform that is one year old and which there is no point in developing for.
Not only are you an ignorant moron, you are also a disrespectful piece of turd. The only shit so far is what is contained in your tiny head.
If it doesn't work on Linux, it is not written with any worthwhile goal in mind.
Again, you should lay off the cool aid and drop the religion. You are exactly what shows that so many Linux zealots are retarded morons. For the record, I do a significant amount of development on Linux (on JBoss mostly). What I am not however, is totally religious about my platform. You need to take your meds and try to get out some more.
Pointing out that Apple uses platform-specific tools, both as a major player (in iOS today) and as a minor player historically. These platform specific tools have not had any impact on Apple's ability to deliver. Additionally, Android uses platform-specific tools and did, both as a minor insignificant player and as a major player today. I am saying that whether your tools are platform specific or not is irrelevant for your market penetration.
Oh, and porting from Android to WP7 is significantly easier than porting from Android to iOS for example. C# and Java as languages (not counting GUI libraries here) are so similar that you can copy and past code unmodified a lot of the time, and with tiny modifications all of the time. C# is Java on steroids you could say. Oh, and if you want to argue Java/C#, keep in mind that I was part of a team that delivered large commercial apps in Java as far back as 1997. C# today is what Java could have been if it had not been managed by a committee. I still do a lot of development in Java, but VS2010 and C# leaves all Java tools in the dust at the moment. Which is a little sad actually.
Here is the problem with your argument (and why the Tragedy of Commons was brought up). When "everybody" owns something, "nobody" owns something. It is that simple. Linux is not a success because of its widely distributed ownership, it is a success because of its dictatorial owner. Similar efforts with distributed ownership has failed to produce much of anything.
Once you are in a situation where "nobody" owns everything, production more or less grinds to a halt and people start dying of starvation. Socialist countries don't go dictatorial and ugly by accident, it is inherent in the very idea of socialism. Countries (like the Scandinavian ones) have held disaster at bay either by winning the lottery (Norway is one of the worlds largest oil producers with only 4.5 million people. Norway is also highly capitalist when it comes to its foreign economic policies) or by actually adopting highly capitalist policies like Sweden.
Slashdot Mirror
That really is the situation though, and it's why in recent years Norway has slowed it's whaling industry
Sure, but is this a good thing? The minke whale has a high reproduction rate and competes with other (slow reproduction) whale species. Norway has been hunting the minke exclusively. The secession of that hunt will mean that the minke will out-compete other species, driving those to extinction. Human hunters are the ultimate cause of this, we un-balanced the situation. We should also carefully monitor, culling where needed, the situation until a better balance can be achieved. A hysterical "all whaling must be banned" will not accomplish this. Balance will eventually be reached, but one where a number of the slower reproducing species will be extinct.
There is a reason the US is no longer banning Norwegian salmon. They did so based on the fact that Norway hunts seals. Seals reproduce very fast. It only took a couple of years for the situation with no culling to move from "interesting" to "disastrous". Thankfully both Norway and Iceland now cull the seal population.
The problem is Japan, and a tiny handful of other countries (i.e. Iceland) think they're fucking special and somehow have a right to carry on whaling
What a load of cluless rubbish. The whale species (you did know there was more than one, right) hunted by Japan, Norway, Iceland and a few others, are not in any way, shape or form threatened by extinction. Haven't been for decades. In fact, the science committee in the IWC has repeatedly stated that some limited culling of these particular whale types should be re-started so as to maintain a balance. If the number of whales grow too much it can also have a detrimental effect on the environment. We could all see what happened when the morons in the "don't kill the really cute animals" organizations made Iceland and Norway stop seal hunting. Millions of starving seals drowned in fish nets all along the northern European coast. Interestingly, the highly paid politicians in the IWC repeatedly ignore the scientific point of view due to the immense pressure from clueless environmentalist like Paul Watson - an man who only a tiny step up from the Somali pirates.
Sorry dude, but scientifically, you and Paul Watson are wrong. Culling of these particular species of whale is not only responsible, it is crucial that we do so. Ask the scientists involved, not the nut-case anti-whaling lunatics.
The Green House Effect. Remember that? An increase in CO2 is positive for plant life, not a negative.
Indeed, an increase in CO2 will impact the third world. Particularly very dry places. They will become more fertile. More plants will grow. More plants is the same as more food. There is a reason we call the increase in CO2 the "green house effect". That is the effect it has. Now, what is the purpose of a green house? It is to make food grow better and faster with less earth and less water. Seems like a good idea to me. I like people to stay alive and well fed.
On the other hand we have the absurdity of bio fuels that the green lobby is pushing. This has already killed a lot of poor people. It has stalled a trend that has been positive for decades, where less and less people die of starvation. Food prices has gone up significantly in the past few years, partly due to the fact that farmers make more money growing corn for bio fuel than they do for growing food. An increase in food prices means a reverse in the trend of fewer and fewer people dying of starvation.
The green lobby wants us to take drastic action today to stave off a potential and theoretical problem in the future. The fact that the action they are demanding is killing people today (that is knowledge, not a "ma happen") seems to hold no relevance.
Given all that, come up with a way for the planetary temperature to rise WITHOUT using the significant increases in GHGs and DOESN'T violate the laws of thermodynamics
Ah, yes, the God of The Gaps. Your argument is identical to the "we don't know how it was done. so God done it" argument of the creationist crowd (whatever they call them selves this week). It's a bad argument, and it should certainly not be used to make drastic, and very, very expensive change.
We (should) all know that we have a very tenuous understanding of the mechanisms involved. Still, scientists and "green" politicians demand extremely drastic changes, changes that we know have very serious and negative consequences. Isn't that a rather bad thing. We don't need to imagine what will happen if the green nuts get their will and we start putting food into our gas tanks. The price of food will go up, and we will stall or even reverse the extremely positive trend of fewer and fewer people starving to death every year. Increasing food prices as a result of hare-brained ideas like bio-fuel has already driven up food prices. The increase in food prices has already killed people. In other words, based on some very tenuous data we have already started to kill people. That doesn't seem rational to me.
Do you feel as dumb as you are, or is your confidence level masking your perception of your own stupidity and ignorance?
Yes, he does. His "stats" are meaningless. It is not the number of dead per year. What if only 17 people took part in this over the past 50 years. It is the relative number of deaths compared to the number of participants in the endeavor. 17 seems rather high given the low number of astronauts and the low number of trips.
Lives lost per year is an utterly meaningless measurement. What if only 17 people took part in exploration over those 50 years? That would have been pretty bad. The number of lives lost in this particular exploration seems rather high. The number of astronauts and the number of trips is vanishingly small compared to the number of people participating in (for example) the exploration of the West. Yes, we have to expect losses, but that is too high.
Of course Foxconn may be better than the alternatives
More than that, Foxonn and friends are the reason that China, India and other poor countries are, I was going to say slowly, but it isn't slow, it is fast, reducing their poverty, hunger, starvation. The number of people dying of starvation has been steadily dropping since the start of the industrial revolution, but over the past few decades it has been dropping really, really fast. The UN thinks that starvation as a systemic problem outside of Africa is going to be gone in a few decades.
None of the reduction in poverty, the reduction in starvation around the world was caused by AID programs. In fact, government AID programs have generally exacerbated the poverty problems in the third world. Basically all of the positive development we have seen is caused by foreign (and later domestic) investment in third world countries. You know. NIKE. Adidas. Shoes. Foxconn. Those guys. The government AID programs have only made things worse. Much worse. Musicians doing AID concerts have added to the problems. NIKE having children hand-stitching AIRs in poor countries have been a real benefit. Save millions and millions from starvation.
He didn't. Did your parents routinely bang you on your head with a hammer through your childhood? Sounds like it. Yes, $6K might seem low to you, but if that is well above the national average at the place where the person making $6K lives, then $6K isn't bad. Salaries are only comparable in relationship to the cost of living. Absolute dollar amounts are meaningless.
No, you don't. You boycott the biggest guy. Only. He has the muscle to effect change. The little guy (anyone who makes WP 7 phones) it has no effect. If you boycott everybody it won't work since you won't be able to focus your boycotting effort. Go after the big guy. Once he makes the supplier clean up his act, the little guys are improved automatically and the price of smart phones increase by 3%.
Sigh. You are not this clueless, are you?
Really. So how do you explain the huge gains in almost every aspect of a Chinese persons life? I know, these Foxconn working conditions are bad, but here is a clue for you - before Foxconn, it was worse much worse. China has steadily been improving for quite a while, and faster than many of the poor countries it was on par with 50-60 years ago.
Here is the easy answer, and it should be obvious, but I am not sure that you'll understand. If you boycott Apple, and Apple quits its relationship with Foxconn, or threatens to do so, it matters to Foxconn. Apple is an important customer. Pushing Apple has the possibility of making a difference. On the other hand you could boycott the LG Windows Phone 7 phone, which might also be created by Foxconn. This would make LG threaten to take all four phones ordered for 2012 off the table. How much do you think Foxconn would care?
You push the big guy because what the big guy does matters. No need to push the little guy, once you push the big guy, things around the little guy improves as a side-effect. Pushing Apple can make a difference. Pushing "Joe's home-electronics shop" is not going to make Foxconn worried.
Made that a little more clear for you?
No, that is not what he is saying. Are you retarded?
EOM
there are enough somethings in a modern society that you could have everyone responsible for something
Not really. I'd love to see you describe how and not create a massive bureaucracy in the process.
You'd be able to have proper modular structure, rather than monolithic entities. (Sounds like the Linux kernel.)
You got that one wrong too. At least if you think the Linux Kernel is not a huge, monolithic Mastodont. Even Linus thinks it is.
If something can exist at both extremes at the same time, then the spectrum has no validity
Only in your mind.
when matketspeak creeps into the comment you can be damned sure the post is coming from Redmond
Yeah, it must be. That's why, more or less each time I have said I prefer the Windows Phone over Apple or Android products, after having used them all, and using them all regularly too (I also develop for mobile, no longer for Apple) I am accused of being a paid shill. I have been to Seattle twice in my life. Never anywhere near One Microsoft Way.
why are you so focused on dicks?
Most people who are so in love with something as abstract as a football team, a computing platform or a country for that matter, that they can't stand to hear others say bad things about whatever it is they have an infatuation with, or even good things about a "competitor", suffer from serious problems with self confidence. For men, and this is /. after all, in popular lingo, severe self-confidence problems is quite frequently referred to in colorful terms as a reproductive organ size issue. Hence my phrasing.
So the fact that anyone who says anything nice about an MS product or action is instantly called a paid shill or modded "troll" on /. is not something you have a problem with? OK. Hope you get well soon.
Incidentally, the WP7 market share is just a tiny bit lower than the Apple Macintosh market share was a few years ago, with a significantly larger potential market. Was the Apple market of a handful of years ago dead and without developers?
Even if you can take an Android application and run it through a meat grinder to make it into C#,
You can't. The GUI stuff is platform specific, and you can not "meat grind" Android GUI stuff into XAML (at least not currently). Still, the majority of code is non-GUI, and that will port easily. Then you add the GUI specifics, and you have taken advantage of the improved WP7 GUI.
You are right that there is currently little incentive for developers to be on WP7 though, and still more than 50 000 apps have been developed. Not bad for a platform that is one year old and which there is no point in developing for.
It does. And contains shit.
Not only are you an ignorant moron, you are also a disrespectful piece of turd. The only shit so far is what is contained in your tiny head.
If it doesn't work on Linux, it is not written with any worthwhile goal in mind.
Again, you should lay off the cool aid and drop the religion. You are exactly what shows that so many Linux zealots are retarded morons. For the record, I do a significant amount of development on Linux (on JBoss mostly). What I am not however, is totally religious about my platform. You need to take your meds and try to get out some more.
Pointing out that Apple uses platform-specific tools, both as a major player (in iOS today) and as a minor player historically. These platform specific tools have not had any impact on Apple's ability to deliver. Additionally, Android uses platform-specific tools and did, both as a minor insignificant player and as a major player today. I am saying that whether your tools are platform specific or not is irrelevant for your market penetration.
Oh, and porting from Android to WP7 is significantly easier than porting from Android to iOS for example. C# and Java as languages (not counting GUI libraries here) are so similar that you can copy and past code unmodified a lot of the time, and with tiny modifications all of the time. C# is Java on steroids you could say. Oh, and if you want to argue Java/C#, keep in mind that I was part of a team that delivered large commercial apps in Java as far back as 1997. C# today is what Java could have been if it had not been managed by a committee. I still do a lot of development in Java, but VS2010 and C# leaves all Java tools in the dust at the moment. Which is a little sad actually.
Here is the problem with your argument (and why the Tragedy of Commons was brought up). When "everybody" owns something, "nobody" owns something. It is that simple. Linux is not a success because of its widely distributed ownership, it is a success because of its dictatorial owner. Similar efforts with distributed ownership has failed to produce much of anything.
Once you are in a situation where "nobody" owns everything, production more or less grinds to a halt and people start dying of starvation. Socialist countries don't go dictatorial and ugly by accident, it is inherent in the very idea of socialism. Countries (like the Scandinavian ones) have held disaster at bay either by winning the lottery (Norway is one of the worlds largest oil producers with only 4.5 million people. Norway is also highly capitalist when it comes to its foreign economic policies) or by actually adopting highly capitalist policies like Sweden.
Did I. I don't think I did. What makes you think I did? Reading comprehension is difficult I understand.