Such a person would not be the type to download and install Firefox on their own.
This also shows some ignorance. Not only is Firefox very popular on the Mac, the market for shareware and independent applications is much healthier on the Mac than on Windows. If anything, Mac users are much more avid downloaders of new and different software than the average Windows user. You can ask some software developers who started developing for the Mac after years of Windows development to testify to this. They usually find that their downloads of demos and trial versions skyrocket when they port their product to Mac, and they find an enthusiastic user base.
In contrast, the average Windows user rarely ventures outside the standard Microsoft applications, except perhaps in the case of games. I wouldn't be surprised is Firefox actually had greater marketshare on the Mac platform than on Windows - because Windows users are so habituated to IE. There is also a thriving market of alternative text editors, word processors, and page layout apps on the Mac, which doesn't really exist for Windows, because everybody just uses Word.
The Mac's main selling point and or claim to fame is that it is easier to use than a Windows based PC. That means that the regular Mac buyer is someone who finds a Windows based PC too hard to use.
Why is ease of use only for computer illiterate people? Power users want ease-of-use too, so they can be more productive, and get more work done.
Anyway, how do you explain the vast proportion of Mac users who have been using their machines professionally in cutting-edge industries for years? Heck, for a long time, it was one of the few serious machines for digital imaging and publishing, because only Macs had Photoshop and coulor management. They are also popular in the scientific computing field. These are users who are so demanding of their machines that they don't have time to screw around.
Also, how do you explain the vast number of computer illiterate Windows users? You don't seem to have much experience of the Mac world, you are just making assumptions based on marketing. In my long experience of both sides, the proportion of technically knowledgeable Mac users is higher. That's probably because it's usually an informed decision, to choose a "different" option. Wheras someone who knows nothing about computers will usually just accept what the salesman pushes, or what is used at work - which is a Windows machine 99% of the time. They literally put no thought into their purchase.
Another thing I'vbe noticed with Windows users, is that they are generally much more confused about technology and terminology. For example, they think that Internet Explorer is the internet. Wheras most Mac users, even the biggest newbies, understand that a browser is just an application used to access the internet. There also seems to be a better understanding of the filesystem. Windows users often say "I saved the file in Word" - thinking that Word is where the files are stored, where a newbie Mac user is likely to understand it's on a disk, or in a folder separate to the application.
Anyway, enough of the explanation. I do find it amazing that you honestly believed what you said, because it is so contrary to how the Mac world actually is. Maybe you should go out and look at how it actually is, rather than just projecting your stereotypes onto a group you know nothing about?
Actually, from the looks of that picture Jobs is actually targeting classic arcade gamers. Perhaps this is his solution for bringing more games to the Mac? Safari - now with Asteroids and Donkey Kong.
Actually, I am. I've had a fairly long career as a graphic designer and photographer. but web design is not the same as graphic design. I don't approach designing websites the same way I design for the printed page.
Design itself conveys information and sets the mood and tone and style of your site.
Right - but why do you have to use absolute positioning to do that? Why do you have to use methods that fail under different browsers, or fail when the text size is changed? You can easily convey tone and style while creating good, standards-compliant browsers. But you won't succeed if you try to make the page look *exactly the same* in each browser.
Web pages are an interaction between the publisher and the user. And some of those users actually appreciate good design, much in the way that some users appreciate the differences between a PC and a Mac, or a Ford and a BMW.
Indeed. I love good design. And good design for the web is design that adapts to different browsers and user preferences. Bad design is stuff that tries to look the same everyehere. Your problem is that you are ignoring your medium. When you design a car, you design for a vehicle, not a washing machine. When you design clothes, you design for clothes, not for bridges. When you design for the web, you design for the web. You don't try to pretend it's a printed document. You workj with your medium, not against it.
Pages are not always supposed to look different for everyone. That puts a "rule" in place which you're assuming holds true for everyone under all circumstances. They are supposed to look different if the user wants them to. For example, if a user is color-blind, they might change the colors that the page is rendered with. You can't control that, so you may as well live with it.
Content is content. Design is design. Together, the two can be greater than the sum of the parts.
Indeed. So I wonder why you are ignoring that, and pretending the web is something that it is not?
Apple's marketing was always extreme, and that is their style for as long as Jobs is on top.
What do you mean by extreme? It's always seemed fairly sedate and understated to me, with the exception of the raucous iPod ads. Remember the Mac ads when Jobs came back? They were all elegant, and barely even dared to "sell" the products - they were mostly just sparse shots of the product on a white background, with little elaboration.
I think the marketing of Microsoft and Dell are much more extreme. The Windows Vista ad is ridiculous - as if people actually say "Wow!" at a new version of Windows. Or there's the Microsoft ads that talk about how they empower people to conquer the universe. Or the Dell ads, with their SUPER COOL!! CHEAP!! BUY NOW!!! AMAZING FEATURES!!!!
All of those examples seem much more extreme that the comparatively quiet and friendly Apple advertising.
it's sort of like a cult, it doesn't matter sometimes Jobs says ridiculous things
Why should it matter? I use Apple products because they work well. Should I use something different just because Jobs occassionally puts his foot in his mouth? I don't understand why anyone would choose a computer or software based on the personality of the CEO, rather than the usefulness of the hardware and software.
Apple always tries to create its own bubble where it competes with mythical collective enemies such as "The PC", "Microsoft",
Geeee, that's all a fabrication. It's not like Dell or Microsoft have ever acted antagonistically towards Apple, or "declared war" on them. Oh wait, they have. The other players have just as much, or more, of a problem with this mentality than Apple. Just look at all the big-noting over companies trying to create an "iPod killer," for example. If anything, Apple is happy surviving alongside the other players, where the likes of Microsoft and Dell aren't happy until they crush all the competition. To them, being in second place means losing. Apple's definition of victory is totally different.
If it doesn't look the way it was designed to look, then it doesn't "work".
You clearly don't understand authoring for the web. It's not about how it looks, it's about conveying information. What does "how it looks" mean for someone who is blind, and uses a screen reader? Even in Internet Explorer, users can change the text size, or base CSS, which will change how your site looks.
If you want everything to look the same, you should be a graphic designer, not a web designer. Wepages are supposed to look different for different viewers, based on their preferences.
At one point in history, people believed the world was flat. They wern't idiots.
Back when steam-powered rail was being developed, some of the leading scientists of the day swore that rail travel over 35 mph was impossible,
And those are the kind of people that the "global warming skeptics" are. People who are on the wrong side of scientific evidence, who are fixed in their thinking.
All you're doing here is proving him correct
How so? I don't say what I do out of group think.
If you can read that, and STILL try to claim that "while reading the article demonstrates that he is talking about all environmentalists", then one of us has a reading comprehension problem.. and I'm pretty sure it's not me. He couldn't *possibly* be more specific and unambiguous.
Shit, do you even read my replies or the article? He ALSO says, in the same article, we shouldn't speak about "the environment." That's a pretty unambigious condemnation of all environmentalists. Do you still think he doesn't have any problem with moderate environmentalists after his previous comments?
President Klaus said that "environmentalism is a religion"
No qualifier there, just unadulterated bullshit. Further:
Czech president Vaclav Klaus warned that environmentalists who claim to advocate policy changes to combat so-called global warming "only pretend" to promote environmental protection.
I see, they're just a bunch of fakers. They have this elaborate scheme of pretending to care about the environment, so they can take away your freedom. he goes on:
The Czech president said recently "Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so..."
Every serious person and scientist? Hello crazy-land. And that:
Further studies on global warming, he said, are a waste of money since there is already enough evidence for those seeking to make policy and other changes.
See, we don't need this fancy science to study stuff that happens on the planet. We already know that the world is flat - it's obvious. Looking any further for answeres would be a waste of time and money.
I don't see how you can believe that this guy is just an innocent looking for depoliticized science. Guess where he said those things? At the right-wing "think-tank," the Cato Institute. One of the most notorious politicizers of the global warming debate. In the last post, you claimed he just couldn't find any moderates, and that he was going to dismiss the debate. Firstly, he hasn't "dismissed" the debate - he's taken active part in it, so all this "oh, I don't know what to do" stuff is bullshit. Secondly, he has actively sought out crazies at the Cato Institute, and actively ignored moderates. It would have been much easier to find some moderate scientific advisors than to make the special effort to jump into bed with Cato.
I think this pretty well sums up this entire thread. You've made up your mind, you've read into the article what you want to read, and there's absolutely no possibility in your mind that you are anything other than 100% correct. And anybody who disagrees with you is an idiot, and therefore not worth talking to.
No, you seem to have little reading comprehension, and little understanding of where Klaus is coming from. Are you being deliberately credulous? I'm happy to call an idiot an idiot. That doesn't mean that everybody who disagrees with me is an idiot. But idiots like Klaus certainly are.
I notice you haven't bothered to respond to the substance of my posts, but instead carried on with this "everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot" strawman.
Well, call me an idiot. For myself, I'm going to conclude that his ideas about group-think and political correctness surrounding the debate are correct, and that you are proof that he's right.
"help cement MSFT dominance by building broken web sites" you say....... To me, a "broken website" is one where only 15% of my users can use it.
What kind of nonsense is this?
If you build a standards-compliant website, it will work in IE. It won't be broken. It may have some layout differences, but it will work. So, what's all this crap about people not being able to use your website if you code to standards? It's more likely to break for everybody else if you ignore standards and build in IE-specific stuff.
Also, non-IE users make up a lot more than 15% of the market. you must have a pretty skewed audience there if you have 85% of users on IE.
Suddenly I have a mental image of the mythbusters creating a cooking robot to try to make breakfast while another robot sets the cruise control while taking its hands off the wheel...
Surely it also involves some kind of vacuum chamber and pump? The robot solution sounds too straightforward and simple. I think there's also a mouse trap and several pieces of string involved at critical locations.
After all, nobody could envision the car wandering off the road under this scenario without a proper test, could they?
If it doesn't, they will make their own cruise control packed with 5 TONS OF DYNAMITE just to make sure. Hell, they'll do that even if it does go off the road. Either that, or they'll pass the job off on the "build team" to investigate the properties of ESP on the cruise control, because the myth wasn't explodey enough for Adam and Jamie to bother with.
Pointing out that people on the extremes of both sides of the argument (the oil company exec, and the president of an organization I made up because I couldn't think of a real one off the top of my head)
This reveals the fallacy of this entire line of argument... such an organization does not exist in the global warming debate. You've had to fabricate stuff to pretend that both sides are equal in their biases and craziness, when they are not.
What do you think is the best way to address the GPLv2-to-GPLv3 transition without ending up on one or the other side of the barricade?"
Just become a closed source developer. That way you won't be on either side of the GPL fence. And you could (nay should) add annoying DRM to your software.
And as far as that goes, having absolute positioning automatically take its container out of the document flow and encompassing containers is stupid too. How many layouts with footers would have been a snap to do had it not been for that foul-up?
Agreed. but why are you using absolute positioning anyway?
The standards "bodies" are just that. Bodies. People. Who make dumb mistakes. Or who promote agendas of their own choosing.
True, but I'd rather have them screw it up than Microsoft. At least they have reasonable agendas that are declared for all to see. I don't feel comfortable having web standards being decided by Microsoft's agenda of "Whatever makes us money, screw everybody else."
At least the standards bodies have more concern about an accessible web for all users, rather than a blinged-out web full of gimmicks for only a subset of users.
Second of all, while public transport is not quite the shambles it is in the US, outside of London and other large cities it is still nightmarish enough that unless your job is (a) within 5 miles or (b) in a major city, public transport is not going to be reliable enough to get to work on time.
So, don't speed and you'll be fine.
Third, how many people do you know drive while carefully keeping both hands on the wheel at all times, and never, ever cross their hands over each other when turning? If you cross your hands during your test, you fail.
Well, I do. What kind of idiot crosses their hands while steering? And if people don't know how to drive, then why should they have a license? There are plenty of bad drivers out there. I never argued that the majority of drivers are good drivers. they certainly aren't. I argue that the majority of drivers should be taken off the roads until they learn to drive.
For one you've a great big red L that tells all the other drivers to back off because you're a learner.
That's funny - I thought it told other drivers to act like an asshole around you. At least that's how they react, the opposite of "backing off."
Who is safer: Someone with their eyes glued to the dashboard doing 70, or someone doing 75 who is looking at the road ahead?
False dichotomy. you don't have to have your eyes glued to the dashboard to drive under the limit. Heck, drive well under the limit, and you won't have to look at it at all.
People have not suddenly got less safe, and removing the ability for large swathes of the populace to drive is not going to make them any safer.
Sure it does - if they are on a bus, or unemployed in their living room smoking bongs or drinking beer, they are a lot safer than when they were on the roads.
frankly, yes.... unless you're looking at polls that are vastly different than the polls that I've seen on the subject.
They conducted polls of the entire world? Got a link?
So explain to them - without the hysteronics - why one doesn't preclude the other.
It's somewhat a waste of time to try and reason with idiots.
Not at all. First, a correction I've already made for you - his article concerns aggressive environmentalism, not environmentalism in general.
But where does he make that distinction? In one word? meanwhile, he cites people who believe that all environmentalism is religion. Again, I ask you - if he's only talking about a particular type of environmentalism, why does he not address the moderates? Why does he not clearly make the distinction. I think you are incorrect in this distinction. he claims we should not discuss the environment at all - how is that not dismissing environmentalism as a whole?
Second - given the tone & tenor of the debate, it's not difficult at all to see massive parallels between the "pro" side and Soviet attempts at imposing group-think. He even makes that point directly himself:
The dictates of political correctness are strict and only one permitted truth, not for the first time in human history, is imposed on us. Everything else is denounced.
So, he says that without any evidence whatsoever. Who is "imposing" this? frankly, it's very difficult to see any parallels with the soviets, and group-think, unless you actually ignore reality and make shit up.
The phrase, "Scientific consensus" has a different meaning in the Soviet world he grew up in.
So, maybe he should stop projecting the Soviet world he grew up in onto everything else, and instead see that this is not how the word is being used in today's world? This is not what people mean at all when they speak of consensus on global warming.
But the Academy of Sciences had looked at other evidence, involving planting practices in Siberia, where conditions were greatly different from those in the Ukraine. When confronted by the evidence of western success, and even in the face of crop failures in the Ukraine in the first few years, the western experience was discarded.
But we aren't talking about the Ukraine and a group of Soviet scientists manipulating data. We are talking about very good scientific evidence, agreed upon by scientists from around the world with many different political persuasions. In this debate, the Soviet manipulators would be the "anti" side who ignore data to push a political agenda, and the Western success with crops would be the global warming evidence.
Not fantacy at all. He's not ignoring it because of fantacy. he's ignoring the debate BECUASE OF THE WAY IT'S BEING CONDUCTED. He doesn't know who to trust, who to believe, and so is ignoring all of it. That's not fantacy. It's a good idea
It's total fucking stupidity. There's loads of evidence out there, tons of calm, rational debate. To ignore that because of some stereotypes about environmentalists is batshit crazy.
Basing public policy on "The sky is falling!" is just as stupid as basing it on "Nothing to see here. Move along".
Except the "sky is falling" characterization is basically an exagerration, and often an outright falsehood.
Ratchet back the debate so that it starts to resemble something a bit more sensible and you might get his attention, and actually have a chance at influencing him and therefore his country's policies.
But the debate is sensible and the ones who are trying to make it otherwise are propagandists.
Because it's freaking near impossible to FIND "moderate" debate on global warming.
Do you seriously believe that? It's just false. There are tons of mo
but it's not called the "QuickScatt," or the "QuickScatterometer." It's called the "QuickScat." The term "Scat" has long been used for a form of jazz lyrics, or alternative, things that are scatalogical in nature. Didn't they put any thought into the name?
Or more likely, you'll see a hell of a lot of people losing their licenses and their jobs.
Why would you lose your job for losing your license, unless you drove for a job? Isn't there plenty of public transport in London? And wouldn't it serve them right for speeding?
It's very, very easy to do 5MPH over the limit, when the limit is 70MPH.
It's also very, very easy to do 5mph under the speed limit. It's not very hard to avoid speeding if you are paying attention.
Most people don't try to speed, and I'm betting the first thing a lot of people know about it is when the letter drops through the door telling them to cough up.
Why should they have a license in the first place if they are not aware of how fast they are going? you fail your driver's license test immediately if you speed during the test.
If that's redefined as the standard then it's not broken, is it?
So, you just go and break it for everybody who's been following the standard? Nice.
Besides, MS's model makes more sense anyway.
It doesn't to me.
With flakey standards, I may WANT a 300px-wide box. But I have to then subtract the borders, then subtract the margins, then write 278px. Look at it, decide to change the padding or border width, and I have to do the math again. Dumb.
Not dumb. the whole point of the margins is that they are outside the box. If everything is included in the box, then what is the point of having margins? You can,/b> specify a 300 pixel box. That box refers to the area you have for content, the base measurement. If we do things your way, then everything subtracts from the area of the box, so we no longer can rely on having 300 pixels for the contents of the box.
I think the standards bodies thought this through more thoroughly than you or Microsoft did.
How can that be so? If it's new to the US, then it must be new, and can't have existed anywhere else before. Didn't you know that the US is the only place that matters?
about a woman who bought an RV, drove it on the highway, set the cruise control, went back to make breafast, and, of course, the RV crashed.
Yeah, stupid people are funny.
The woman sued the RV maker for not explicitly stating in the manual that she needed to be behind the wheel when on cruise control and won a million bucks.
Of course she did! The system is out of control, I tells ya.
Did you ever consider that your father might be telling you an urban myth?
Slashdot Mirror
I like Tiger Moths.
P.S:
Such a person would not be the type to download and install Firefox on their own.This also shows some ignorance. Not only is Firefox very popular on the Mac, the market for shareware and independent applications is much healthier on the Mac than on Windows. If anything, Mac users are much more avid downloaders of new and different software than the average Windows user. You can ask some software developers who started developing for the Mac after years of Windows development to testify to this. They usually find that their downloads of demos and trial versions skyrocket when they port their product to Mac, and they find an enthusiastic user base.
In contrast, the average Windows user rarely ventures outside the standard Microsoft applications, except perhaps in the case of games. I wouldn't be surprised is Firefox actually had greater marketshare on the Mac platform than on Windows - because Windows users are so habituated to IE. There is also a thriving market of alternative text editors, word processors, and page layout apps on the Mac, which doesn't really exist for Windows, because everybody just uses Word.
Why is ease of use only for computer illiterate people? Power users want ease-of-use too, so they can be more productive, and get more work done.
Anyway, how do you explain the vast proportion of Mac users who have been using their machines professionally in cutting-edge industries for years? Heck, for a long time, it was one of the few serious machines for digital imaging and publishing, because only Macs had Photoshop and coulor management. They are also popular in the scientific computing field. These are users who are so demanding of their machines that they don't have time to screw around.
Also, how do you explain the vast number of computer illiterate Windows users? You don't seem to have much experience of the Mac world, you are just making assumptions based on marketing. In my long experience of both sides, the proportion of technically knowledgeable Mac users is higher. That's probably because it's usually an informed decision, to choose a "different" option. Wheras someone who knows nothing about computers will usually just accept what the salesman pushes, or what is used at work - which is a Windows machine 99% of the time. They literally put no thought into their purchase.
Another thing I'vbe noticed with Windows users, is that they are generally much more confused about technology and terminology. For example, they think that Internet Explorer is the internet. Wheras most Mac users, even the biggest newbies, understand that a browser is just an application used to access the internet. There also seems to be a better understanding of the filesystem. Windows users often say "I saved the file in Word" - thinking that Word is where the files are stored, where a newbie Mac user is likely to understand it's on a disk, or in a folder separate to the application.
Anyway, enough of the explanation. I do find it amazing that you honestly believed what you said, because it is so contrary to how the Mac world actually is. Maybe you should go out and look at how it actually is, rather than just projecting your stereotypes onto a group you know nothing about?
Actually, from the looks of that picture Jobs is actually targeting classic arcade gamers. Perhaps this is his solution for bringing more games to the Mac? Safari - now with Asteroids and Donkey Kong.
Actually, I am. I've had a fairly long career as a graphic designer and photographer. but web design is not the same as graphic design. I don't approach designing websites the same way I design for the printed page.
Design itself conveys information and sets the mood and tone and style of your site.Right - but why do you have to use absolute positioning to do that? Why do you have to use methods that fail under different browsers, or fail when the text size is changed? You can easily convey tone and style while creating good, standards-compliant browsers. But you won't succeed if you try to make the page look *exactly the same* in each browser.
Web pages are an interaction between the publisher and the user. And some of those users actually appreciate good design, much in the way that some users appreciate the differences between a PC and a Mac, or a Ford and a BMW.Indeed. I love good design. And good design for the web is design that adapts to different browsers and user preferences. Bad design is stuff that tries to look the same everyehere. Your problem is that you are ignoring your medium. When you design a car, you design for a vehicle, not a washing machine. When you design clothes, you design for clothes, not for bridges. When you design for the web, you design for the web. You don't try to pretend it's a printed document. You workj with your medium, not against it.
Pages are not always supposed to look different for everyone. That puts a "rule" in place which you're assuming holds true for everyone under all circumstances. They are supposed to look different if the user wants them to. For example, if a user is color-blind, they might change the colors that the page is rendered with. You can't control that, so you may as well live with it. Content is content. Design is design. Together, the two can be greater than the sum of the parts.Indeed. So I wonder why you are ignoring that, and pretending the web is something that it is not?
What do you mean by extreme? It's always seemed fairly sedate and understated to me, with the exception of the raucous iPod ads. Remember the Mac ads when Jobs came back? They were all elegant, and barely even dared to "sell" the products - they were mostly just sparse shots of the product on a white background, with little elaboration.
I think the marketing of Microsoft and Dell are much more extreme. The Windows Vista ad is ridiculous - as if people actually say "Wow!" at a new version of Windows. Or there's the Microsoft ads that talk about how they empower people to conquer the universe. Or the Dell ads, with their SUPER COOL!! CHEAP!! BUY NOW!!! AMAZING FEATURES!!!!
All of those examples seem much more extreme that the comparatively quiet and friendly Apple advertising.
it's sort of like a cult, it doesn't matter sometimes Jobs says ridiculous thingsWhy should it matter? I use Apple products because they work well. Should I use something different just because Jobs occassionally puts his foot in his mouth? I don't understand why anyone would choose a computer or software based on the personality of the CEO, rather than the usefulness of the hardware and software.
Apple always tries to create its own bubble where it competes with mythical collective enemies such as "The PC", "Microsoft",Geeee, that's all a fabrication. It's not like Dell or Microsoft have ever acted antagonistically towards Apple, or "declared war" on them. Oh wait, they have. The other players have just as much, or more, of a problem with this mentality than Apple. Just look at all the big-noting over companies trying to create an "iPod killer," for example. If anything, Apple is happy surviving alongside the other players, where the likes of Microsoft and Dell aren't happy until they crush all the competition. To them, being in second place means losing. Apple's definition of victory is totally different.
I can't work out if you're trolling, or whether you actually believe this. Care to enlighten us on why you wrote that?
You clearly don't understand authoring for the web. It's not about how it looks, it's about conveying information. What does "how it looks" mean for someone who is blind, and uses a screen reader? Even in Internet Explorer, users can change the text size, or base CSS, which will change how your site looks.
If you want everything to look the same, you should be a graphic designer, not a web designer. Wepages are supposed to look different for different viewers, based on their preferences.
"Is this mic on?"
At one point in history, people believed the world was flat. They wern't idiots. Back when steam-powered rail was being developed, some of the leading scientists of the day swore that rail travel over 35 mph was impossible,
And those are the kind of people that the "global warming skeptics" are. People who are on the wrong side of scientific evidence, who are fixed in their thinking.
All you're doing here is proving him correct
How so? I don't say what I do out of group think.
If you can read that, and STILL try to claim that "while reading the article demonstrates that he is talking about all environmentalists", then one of us has a reading comprehension problem .. and I'm pretty sure it's not me. He couldn't *possibly* be more specific and unambiguous.
Shit, do you even read my replies or the article? He ALSO says, in the same article, we shouldn't speak about "the environment." That's a pretty unambigious condemnation of all environmentalists. Do you still think he doesn't have any problem with moderate environmentalists after his previous comments?
President Klaus said that "environmentalism is a religion"
No qualifier there, just unadulterated bullshit. Further:
Czech president Vaclav Klaus warned that environmentalists who claim to advocate policy changes to combat so-called global warming "only pretend" to promote environmental protection.
I see, they're just a bunch of fakers. They have this elaborate scheme of pretending to care about the environment, so they can take away your freedom. he goes on:
The Czech president said recently "Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so..."
Every serious person and scientist? Hello crazy-land. And that:
Further studies on global warming, he said, are a waste of money since there is already enough evidence for those seeking to make policy and other changes.
See, we don't need this fancy science to study stuff that happens on the planet. We already know that the world is flat - it's obvious. Looking any further for answeres would be a waste of time and money.
I don't see how you can believe that this guy is just an innocent looking for depoliticized science. Guess where he said those things? At the right-wing "think-tank," the Cato Institute. One of the most notorious politicizers of the global warming debate. In the last post, you claimed he just couldn't find any moderates, and that he was going to dismiss the debate. Firstly, he hasn't "dismissed" the debate - he's taken active part in it, so all this "oh, I don't know what to do" stuff is bullshit. Secondly, he has actively sought out crazies at the Cato Institute, and actively ignored moderates. It would have been much easier to find some moderate scientific advisors than to make the special effort to jump into bed with Cato.
I think this pretty well sums up this entire thread. You've made up your mind, you've read into the article what you want to read, and there's absolutely no possibility in your mind that you are anything other than 100% correct. And anybody who disagrees with you is an idiot, and therefore not worth talking to.
No, you seem to have little reading comprehension, and little understanding of where Klaus is coming from. Are you being deliberately credulous? I'm happy to call an idiot an idiot. That doesn't mean that everybody who disagrees with me is an idiot. But idiots like Klaus certainly are.
I notice you haven't bothered to respond to the substance of my posts, but instead carried on with this "everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot" strawman.
Well, call me an idiot. For myself, I'm going to conclude that his ideas about group-think and political correctness surrounding the debate are correct, and that you are proof that he's right.
What kind of nonsense is this?
If you build a standards-compliant website, it will work in IE. It won't be broken. It may have some layout differences, but it will work. So, what's all this crap about people not being able to use your website if you code to standards? It's more likely to break for everybody else if you ignore standards and build in IE-specific stuff.
Also, non-IE users make up a lot more than 15% of the market. you must have a pretty skewed audience there if you have 85% of users on IE.
Surely it also involves some kind of vacuum chamber and pump? The robot solution sounds too straightforward and simple. I think there's also a mouse trap and several pieces of string involved at critical locations.
After all, nobody could envision the car wandering off the road under this scenario without a proper test, could they?If it doesn't, they will make their own cruise control packed with 5 TONS OF DYNAMITE just to make sure. Hell, they'll do that even if it does go off the road. Either that, or they'll pass the job off on the "build team" to investigate the properties of ESP on the cruise control, because the myth wasn't explodey enough for Adam and Jamie to bother with.
This reveals the fallacy of this entire line of argument... such an organization does not exist in the global warming debate. You've had to fabricate stuff to pretend that both sides are equal in their biases and craziness, when they are not.
Just become a closed source developer. That way you won't be on either side of the GPL fence. And you could (nay should) add annoying DRM to your software.
Agreed. but why are you using absolute positioning anyway?
The standards "bodies" are just that. Bodies. People. Who make dumb mistakes. Or who promote agendas of their own choosing.True, but I'd rather have them screw it up than Microsoft. At least they have reasonable agendas that are declared for all to see. I don't feel comfortable having web standards being decided by Microsoft's agenda of "Whatever makes us money, screw everybody else."
At least the standards bodies have more concern about an accessible web for all users, rather than a blinged-out web full of gimmicks for only a subset of users.
So, don't speed and you'll be fine.
Third, how many people do you know drive while carefully keeping both hands on the wheel at all times, and never, ever cross their hands over each other when turning? If you cross your hands during your test, you fail.Well, I do. What kind of idiot crosses their hands while steering? And if people don't know how to drive, then why should they have a license? There are plenty of bad drivers out there. I never argued that the majority of drivers are good drivers. they certainly aren't. I argue that the majority of drivers should be taken off the roads until they learn to drive.
For one you've a great big red L that tells all the other drivers to back off because you're a learner.That's funny - I thought it told other drivers to act like an asshole around you. At least that's how they react, the opposite of "backing off."
Who is safer: Someone with their eyes glued to the dashboard doing 70, or someone doing 75 who is looking at the road ahead?False dichotomy. you don't have to have your eyes glued to the dashboard to drive under the limit. Heck, drive well under the limit, and you won't have to look at it at all.
People have not suddenly got less safe, and removing the ability for large swathes of the populace to drive is not going to make them any safer.Sure it does - if they are on a bus, or unemployed in their living room smoking bongs or drinking beer, they are a lot safer than when they were on the roads.
frankly, yes .... unless you're looking at polls that are vastly different than the polls that I've seen on the subject.
They conducted polls of the entire world? Got a link?
So explain to them - without the hysteronics - why one doesn't preclude the other.
It's somewhat a waste of time to try and reason with idiots.
Not at all. First, a correction I've already made for you - his article concerns aggressive environmentalism, not environmentalism in general.
But where does he make that distinction? In one word? meanwhile, he cites people who believe that all environmentalism is religion. Again, I ask you - if he's only talking about a particular type of environmentalism, why does he not address the moderates? Why does he not clearly make the distinction. I think you are incorrect in this distinction. he claims we should not discuss the environment at all - how is that not dismissing environmentalism as a whole?
Second - given the tone & tenor of the debate, it's not difficult at all to see massive parallels between the "pro" side and Soviet attempts at imposing group-think. He even makes that point directly himself: The dictates of political correctness are strict and only one permitted truth, not for the first time in human history, is imposed on us. Everything else is denounced.
So, he says that without any evidence whatsoever. Who is "imposing" this? frankly, it's very difficult to see any parallels with the soviets, and group-think, unless you actually ignore reality and make shit up.
The phrase, "Scientific consensus" has a different meaning in the Soviet world he grew up in.
So, maybe he should stop projecting the Soviet world he grew up in onto everything else, and instead see that this is not how the word is being used in today's world? This is not what people mean at all when they speak of consensus on global warming.
But the Academy of Sciences had looked at other evidence, involving planting practices in Siberia, where conditions were greatly different from those in the Ukraine. When confronted by the evidence of western success, and even in the face of crop failures in the Ukraine in the first few years, the western experience was discarded.
But we aren't talking about the Ukraine and a group of Soviet scientists manipulating data. We are talking about very good scientific evidence, agreed upon by scientists from around the world with many different political persuasions. In this debate, the Soviet manipulators would be the "anti" side who ignore data to push a political agenda, and the Western success with crops would be the global warming evidence.
Not fantacy at all. He's not ignoring it because of fantacy. he's ignoring the debate BECUASE OF THE WAY IT'S BEING CONDUCTED. He doesn't know who to trust, who to believe, and so is ignoring all of it. That's not fantacy. It's a good idea
It's total fucking stupidity. There's loads of evidence out there, tons of calm, rational debate. To ignore that because of some stereotypes about environmentalists is batshit crazy.
Basing public policy on "The sky is falling!" is just as stupid as basing it on "Nothing to see here. Move along".
Except the "sky is falling" characterization is basically an exagerration, and often an outright falsehood.
Ratchet back the debate so that it starts to resemble something a bit more sensible and you might get his attention, and actually have a chance at influencing him and therefore his country's policies.
But the debate is sensible and the ones who are trying to make it otherwise are propagandists.
Because it's freaking near impossible to FIND "moderate" debate on global warming.
Do you seriously believe that? It's just false. There are tons of mo
but it's not called the "QuickScatt," or the "QuickScatterometer." It's called the "QuickScat." The term "Scat" has long been used for a form of jazz lyrics, or alternative, things that are scatalogical in nature. Didn't they put any thought into the name?
Why would you lose your job for losing your license, unless you drove for a job? Isn't there plenty of public transport in London? And wouldn't it serve them right for speeding?
It's very, very easy to do 5MPH over the limit, when the limit is 70MPH.It's also very, very easy to do 5mph under the speed limit. It's not very hard to avoid speeding if you are paying attention.
Most people don't try to speed, and I'm betting the first thing a lot of people know about it is when the letter drops through the door telling them to cough up.Why should they have a license in the first place if they are not aware of how fast they are going? you fail your driver's license test immediately if you speed during the test.
Wouldn't a satellite named "QuickScat" be properly used for improvising jazz lyrics?
So, you just go and break it for everybody who's been following the standard? Nice.
Besides, MS's model makes more sense anyway.It doesn't to me.
With flakey standards, I may WANT a 300px-wide box. But I have to then subtract the borders, then subtract the margins, then write 278px. Look at it, decide to change the padding or border width, and I have to do the math again. Dumb.Not dumb. the whole point of the margins is that they are outside the box. If everything is included in the box, then what is the point of having margins? You can,/b> specify a 300 pixel box. That box refers to the area you have for content, the base measurement. If we do things your way, then everything subtracts from the area of the box, so we no longer can rely on having 300 pixels for the contents of the box.
I think the standards bodies thought this through more thoroughly than you or Microsoft did.
How can that be so? If it's new to the US, then it must be new, and can't have existed anywhere else before. Didn't you know that the US is the only place that matters?
You mean "Under Pressure"?
Wow, a new car! That's so totally amazing that someone would... sell a car. What will they think of next?
(John Stewart voice) Gooo on...
about a woman who bought an RV, drove it on the highway, set the cruise control, went back to make breafast, and, of course, the RV crashed.Yeah, stupid people are funny.
The woman sued the RV maker for not explicitly stating in the manual that she needed to be behind the wheel when on cruise control and won a million bucks.Of course she did! The system is out of control, I tells ya.
Did you ever consider that your father might be telling you an urban myth?