This just in: Human beings contribute to global warming by breathing. UN officials have set out strict breathing quotas. Anyone surpassing these limits will be persecuted by the International Criminal Court.
I've got another one for those of you trying to lose weight: if it tastes good, it must be bad for you. Just put it down. If it tastes bad, it's probably good for you. Eat more!
The main reason I avoid IE is the user interface. It's behind the times with respect to end-user usability and developer tools.
I think the community would make more headway if Global Warming didn't imply warming. On a personal level, I've experience plenty of "screwed up weather" in the past couple of years (more often too cold than too hot). If the the term was used to justify extreme weather in general would people would jump on board.
Granted, this argument has little to do with science.
So the Kyoto agreement never happened and was never signed by president Clinton? You were either a kid not watching news in 90s, or you are still lying.
I stand corrected. So we've moved the timeline back to 1997 then. Thanks for pointing this out (I honestly didn't remember).
"Reaching the mainstream in 2006?" What reached mainstream in 2006? This notion reached me in the later 1980s or so, and that was in a popular science magazine (and behind the Iron Curtain to boot, so I imagine I must have been pretty late to the party!). It wasn't called with that name at the time (it was simply referred to as "global greenhouse effect", but it was essentially the same thing.
Reaching you and reaching the mainstream community/media is not the same thing.
I'm simply pointing out that the idea of Global Warming didn't take off because of the science.
What, Svante Arrhenius wasn't a scientist?
He was, but he didn't trigger the concept reaching the mainstream in 2006.
Global Warming isn't a rational/scientific debate. If it was, the idea wouldn't have taken off as a result of Al Gore's film. That's not science, it's a popularity contest.
I'm not debating whether the science is there or not. I'm simply pointing out that the idea of Global Warming didn't take off because of the science. And Karmashock is right in saying that when in doubt (there is contradicting evidence for or against some event being caused by Global Warming) the Global Warming crowd goes nuts when people dare to question it. You need to be able to admit that not everything is caused by Global Warming.
Science is not well served by shouting down people who disagree with you. It's served by providing evidence to back up your claims and explaining why your opponent's claims are factually incorrect. Labeling people skeptics without actually proving them wrong is counterproductive.
What the fuck are you talking about?
The movie was a cash in on the already substantial interest and science in global warming. Stop lying, and start opening your eyes.
No need for profanity.
In my personal experience, there was no "substantial interest" in global warming before the movie. No one was talking about it. I never heard about it once in the news or mainstream documentaries in the preceding 20 years.
It might have been all over the place for people looking for it, but it wasn't mainstream in the sense that same sense that search engines didn't pick up popularity before Google came on the block (there were plenty of them before Google but your parents didn't ever mention their name).
Global Warming isn't a rational/scientific debate. If it was, the idea wouldn't have taken off as a result of Al Gore's film. That's not science, it's a popularity contest.
I'm not debating whether the science is there or not. I'm simply pointing out that the idea of Global Warming didn't take off because of the science. And Karmashock is right in saying that when in doubt (there is contradicting evidence for or against some event being caused by Global Warming) the Global Warming crowd goes nuts when people dare to question it. You need to be able to admit that not everything is caused by Global Warming.
Science is not well served by shouting down people who disagree with you. It's served by providing evidence to back up your claims and explaining why your opponent's claims are factually incorrect. Labeling people skeptics without actually proving them wrong is counterproductive.
You forget that the only reason there are Arabs in the Middle East is because they invaded and massacred everyone else en-mass. How is *that* not imperialistic?
The Arabs of the Middle-East have no more claim to the land than anyone else. They are no less imperialistic than anyone else. The people living in Egypt are not really Egyptians. The real Egyptians (copts) are actively persecuted by the ruling Arabs. The same is true is virtually all other Middle-East countries.
At what point do Middle-Eastern people begin to take some responsibility for their own problems?
I see the answer to my question is "not any time soon". The people in the Middle East would like nothing more than to be left alone, but western powers have been actively fucking with them for over a hundred years.
How, exactly, is your average shmoe living in Yemen or Saudi Arabia supposed to "take responsibility" in the face of drone attacks and western support for brutal dictatorships?
Okay, no problem. It's all our fault. Sorry for our ignorant imperialist way. Sheesh.
Hint: There were no drone attacks in Syria nor US support for the rebels when Assad's own people tried to rebel against him and he proceeded to gas them. When we attempted to help them, you labeled us "imperialistic pigs". So you know what? Damned if we do. Damned if we don't.
The Syrian rebellion is not one cohesive group. You can hardly fault us for trying to help the original group only to have some of the arms fall into the harms of an extremist group that overpowered them.
What's the alternative, Sudan? Where millions of people get raped, the world cries injustice and nothing gets done because we don't want to interfere? Please. Give me a break.
No matter what the West does or does not do someone somewhere will find a way to blame us. They just shove it and take personal responsibility for what *is* their fault. Drone attacks might not be their fault, but flocking en-mass to Islamic extremist groups is. They are doing this all over the Middle-East with or without West intervention.
At what point do Middle-Eastern people begin to take some responsibility for their own problems? There is plenty of introspection going on in the West. There is none going on in the Middle-East. You'd have us believe that everything that is going wrong with those countries has to do with the West. I very much doubt that. I daresay a good part of their problems have to do with their own decisions.
You're right. All those anti-abortion and anti-science bills are out of control... Oh wait. What bills?
You can't fault the PM for holding personal beliefs that you might not like. So long as he does a good job (and he has) and does use his position of power to push those beliefs on others (he hasn't) you have nothing to complain about.
You're the one trying to make it about religion instead of looking for the truth. Maybe those tens of thousands protesting attacks by the West have a good reason for protesting. Maybe, just maybe, the West is just a bit meddlesome. You know, the White Man's Burden and all that bollocks?
Are you honestly trying to justify the use of terrorism against civilians, and protesters who support them?
I don't care how many terrorists and their supporters we bomb back to hell. Sitting on our hands sure as heck won't make them go away. Spain tried appeasement and they *still* got hit in the 2004 Madrid bombings.
I don't care how many terrorism supporters make noise in the street. Their opinion is worth exactly zero to me. We should do our best to limit innocent deaths and listen to the opinion of moderates, but the kind of protests we saw all across Europe (where tens of thousands of Muslim thugs prowled the streets, vandalized stores and attacked Jews/Christians) is totally unacceptable. They deserve to have all their bones broken and get deported back to the Middle East and Northern Africa.
Moderates support moderate values. They do not fly Hezbollah, Hamas, ISIS flags in their protests. They do not chant deaths to the Jews and America.
Wake me up when any of these protestors support Gay and Women rights.
At what point will the political-correctness stop?
Either there is a not-so-small extremist element in Islam, or a silent majority who refuses to do anything about it.
What kind of a message are we supposed to get when tens of thousands protest in the streets when the West attacks their extremists but barely a handful Muslim protesters after each time Islamic terrorists kill innocents?
If their moderates truly outnumber their extremists 10:1 we should expect to see 10x more protesters after each terrorist attack. They have both the capability and numbers to crack down on their extremists, but they do not. Their silence is deafening.
Take a look at Jetty. Running out of memory is still a problem where "all bets are off" [1] but being overloaded is not. Incoming requests are queued. If there are too many requests, they are rejected (HTTP 503). The server is very solid and much lighter than other JavaEE implementations (runs like a library instead of a container).
[1] But this is mostly under your control. You shouldn't allow unbounded allocations or unvalidated user requests.
BLISS is ignorance.
