Copyright allows reproduction for

Critique, teaching, reporting and for lampooning.

So, no.

re: Get worse

Well, how did they get any browser before there was IE? How did they get one when IE was available but not bundled?

a) Bought something that came with a browser

b) All ISP's included a browser on the Setup CD/floppy

c) FTP'd

d) Copied from a friend

e) Cover disks

etc.

Or do these no longer work any more? Which then brings up the question about how you get a browser for a computer that doesn't come with a browser, like, oh, Solaris.

"If you want to beat MS in the browser market "

There used to be IE for Mac, produced by Microsoft.

They stopped.

What did they say was the reason for stopping?

"We cannot compete with a browser that comes with the operating system".

If Microsoft don't reckon you have a chance to beat a browser even if you start with a 90% market share if that browser is built in to the OS, what chance does a browser with less than 10% market share have to do it?

re: Re: Miocrosoft is a monolply

Well why the flying monkey wank-fuck does it say "Thank you for your comment. We will moderate it as soon we can. If it is accepted then it will appear on the comments page."

If you're busy moderating, that's what you should be doing. If you're busy doing something else, don't say stupid shit like that.

Deal?

re: Stupid EU

And Microsoft used to be able to expose a HTML API so that other browsers could replace IE seamlessly.

They dropped that.

Plus, I can do exactly the same with KDE. Probably fewer lines, though. Doesn't have to be IE.

re: Hardware support

You are talking bollocks. Command line for Mouse support?

Bollocks.

Now, take your fancy newly installed WindowsXP box with the mouse in the USB slot.

Now place your USB mouse in a new USB slot.

Oh, you have to wait while it notices the mouse, looks for a driver and then goes "OK, you can use it now". Linux? Plug it in and it works. No waiting.

Probably the same with Vista.

@Peter Kay

What is missing from Open Office, then?

Why is it NVidia's fault when its drivers for Vista fucked the system right up, but it's Linux's problem when NVidia's open information doesn't support multiple monitors?

If you want to see what happens when you SUPPORT the platform, take a look at the 945 chipset integrated graphics.

Will it run Aero? Will it fuck.

Will it run Compiz? Yup. Nicely too. Sharing the memory with the CPU can make it a bit pissy if you have a memory intensive program running, but that's inherent in shared memory architecture.

Will it support multiple monitors in Linux? Yes.

etc.

dervheid, Super-Genius

I'm pretty sure that nobody IN THE WORLD has *ever* thought of that.

Your genius is unsurpassed and you will get a Nobel prize forthwith for uncovering the forgotten element.

Methane.

The World Salutes You.

Saviour Of The Planet.

Please show your workings

"Your missing the point, even if we turned *all* 100% of biomass & oil and coal from plant material to CO2, NOW, in zero seconds, the earth would still not suffer runaway global warming."

Please show your workings.

Since you have stated this as evident truth, you must have done so.

So, please. Show us.

Or tell us the journal you have written that has this in.

We await your magnificence to be revealed...

Professional PR from an AC posting twenty times more often

Who do YOU work for, AC? I assume you DO work, don't you?

And is your job PR for the oil companies?

Anonymous Coward Posted Thursday 29th January 2009 11:02 GMT

"You've already admitted your employer is a climate centre. You have a vested interest in promoting AGW theories, because they pay for you to post messages all day."

No, I categorically deny I work in climatology. I have never ever said I work in climatology. Now you may mean a different Mark because, believe it or not, there's more than one Mark in the world, but I deny I have ever said that.

Now, who do YOU work for? And why do you hide under the plausible deniability of "Anonymous Coward" so that nobody knows how much of a speed respondent you are..?

If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear with telling us and not posting AC.

@Steven << Cluestick

And those plants took the Carbon out when they were living.

Some lived 2,000,001 years ago and took the carbon out then.

Some lived 2,000,002 years ago and took the carbon out then.

Some lived ....

For millions of years, carbon was taken out.

And we burn a thousand years worth of carbon each day.

(The UK gets nearly 100cm of rain, 39 inches. It if all drops in one hour, we have a catastrophy. If it drops over a year, we have maritime weather.)

Miocrosoft is a monolply

So why the FUCK do you twats keep bleating "What about Linux? What about Apple?".

And El Reg, what the flying monkey-fuck do you think you're doing letting that shit through?

re: Not so

"Sea-ice loss is problematic for you because sea ice is actually growing"

Is it? The total volume of ice on both poles is increasing? Really? Where are your measurements.

Lets see them.

@JOhn Dougherty

".It consists of a laboratory fact some very pessimistic models and censored and manipulated data."

Where is your proof of manipulation of the data? If it's censored and you know, where's the proof of censorship and how you know it when nobody else does? Where's the proof it IS censorship.

Come on, you DEMAND data. Where's yours/

@ Mark, conspiracy

Uh, how does one frigging movie prove anything about a world-wide secret government conspiracy????

Jesus fuck! you guys don't even try.

re:Call yourselves professionals?

How about IE6? 7?

Do you need another license? Does IE change when you have Vista Ultimate rather than Vista Basic? etc.

How about not making IE the core functionality so you can change the browser maybe per account to be whatever you need to frigging test against.

You don't need a VM to test FF2 and FF3 on windows, do you. So it's hardly necessary.

Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 28th January 2009 23:29 GMT

This mark isn't.

Physics with astrophysics degree. Computer programmer. Not employed in any form of quango.

You?

@Pierre

"The first is nothing like science (intergovernmental report"

Uh, it's written by scientists.

It is about the scientific basis of the AGW debate.

It has science in it.

What does it have to have to be "science"?

Say that there's no AGW? Is THAT the only condition needed to be considered science by you?

re: How's that.

"Do you think the oil industry spends as much on lobbying against AGW as the Environmentalists do lobbying in favour of it?"

Yes, yes I do.

Do you believe they don't?

Water Vapour falls from our sky

limiting how it can DRIVE rather than REACT to change.

So water vapour being a bigger warmer than CO2 is irrelevant: H2O doesn't drive, only react. CO2 doesn't rain out so it CAN drive, AND react.

And how about the denialist screed that once CO2 reached 280ppm that it stopped because the IR absorption band was saturated? Does that not happen with H2O? Or is that idea a load of donkey-balls?

@Andrew Stevenson

"That being said, the scientific information from both side seems to be based more on belief than on science."

Uh, where do you get the absurd notion there's no science on the ProAGW side?

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrhenius_equation

http://old.iupac.org/publications/pac/2004/pdf/7607x1435.pdf

http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

In case you don't like climatologists:

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0019103577900872

http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s11.htm

and to tie that in:

http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/6f.html

http://www.csi.uottawa.ca:4321/astronomy/index.html#absorptionline

@Pad

That isn't the scientific process, though.

You just put a wild-ass-guess out there.

Nothing about how such a pole reversal could act as you suggest, nothing about when or how fast this is changing (even, really, if it is) and, most importantly, you haven't show how that undoes the known and obvious heating effect of the CO2 we can currently measure out there now, this instant.

That's the denialist elephant-in-the-room. Anything you come up with has to explain why the currently know and measured CO2 that can be traced back to trillions of tons of fossil fuel carbon and the heating that necessarily results is undone by your scheme AND YET still shows a signature change that just happens to cooperate with the rate of fossil fuel consumption.

THAT is the "scientific process". Not some shit-wild guess as to how something else could be to blame, but how that idea fits into what we ALREADY KNOW.

Without that, all we're left with is "well, it could be that, but there's nothing to show it, whereas we have <this> to show that the CO2 we pump out is doing it. Since that has data supporting it, until you get back to us, we'll go with that idea".

The next stage is up to you.

@Aron

Wll, were you THERE when the concentration camps were found by the allies?

No?

Then all you have are the photos (you can fake photos) and reports (mostly from the people who benefit from the persecution of the Germans).

But the *amount* of evidence is huge. Even though you WILL find lots and LOTS of people claiming there WAS NEVER a holocaust and it's all a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world, the evidence points to there really having been a holocaust.

Doesn't that sound an awful lot like the AGW "debate"? "There's a petition of scientists say it's wrong", "It's all a scam to get taxes", "Eco-nazis are trying to get us all to live in caves" et al.

Sounds familiar to me. Just the epithet of "Nazi" is on the other side.

@Walter Brown

And if this is a 30-year cycle then it must be in the records for 1940, 1910, 1880, etc with the comensurate 30 year highs in 1955, 1925, 1905, ...

So where are they?

Or is this a "cycle of one"...

@Steve

"and yet the last two winters have brought the best low snow for 10 years."

So 10 years ago it was colder and snowier than it has been this year. Therefore, snow rates are falling.

Yes?

Yup, the nuclear engine in the sky

David, why not use the fucking huge nuclear power station safely stationed 93 million miles away?

RE: I love it when people say...

Ah, the irony.

Someone spouting off about what they know not and kidding on they're one of the cognoscenti.

Tritium. Even rarer, but still a lot of it.

Fusion reactor, with Lithium shell around. Lithium is so easy to get that we make batteries out of it.

Tritium gives excellent energy conversion with the temperatures we can manage in a tokamak (much lower than the solar core) and releases neutrons.

Neutrons hit lithium and the product is.... tritium!

There *are* engineering problems but your four points are neutered badly if you consider the above real-life example.

Proof of our Saurian Masters

Look at a lizard.

Does it EVER smile?

No. The best it can manage is a kind of gaping rictus.

Now, watch Gordon Brown smile.

Scary....

Weren't we buying licenses?

I thought we were buying "licenses".

And, by the reading of the black-and-white of distribution licenses, only the physical medium is restricted, not the ephemeral license.

Then again, grey imports should be completely legal for a product legal in that country.

"His disregard of the Court's authority is thus very serious indeed."

Course, it's just as well the *Judge* said that, not the Microsoft employee...

@Wade Burchette

And that is the same oregon petition that included names of people who have asked to be removed? The same petition that has names of people who are dead, fictional characters and not scientists?

That petition?

Or do you only check up for lies when the statement disagrees with your preconceptions?

@Aron

Are we? Or is that just an argument from personal incredulity?

Remember, the earth's atmosphere is thinner in proportion to the earth than the skin of an apple.

That's all we need to change, not the entire earth, just the extremely thin and tenuous gas that we all have to breathe.

RotM

He should be brought in on ElReg's team investigating Lizard Army softening up techniques, then.

I, for one, welcome our green-men-hunting overlords!

re: Why bother then?

Death is inevitable. We can't avoid it or reverse the decision.

So why not just give up now.

Throw yourself off a cliff.

Hope springs eternal.

re: Urgh

Big Oil Reports that there's nothing wrong with humans burning oil because they won't make billions.

@Enrico Vanni

But the vast majority of scientists wouldn't know what climatology was like if it snuck into bed with them and gave them a BJ.

Fuck, a programmer is a computer scientist.

So you might be right, but that's not necessarily of any frigging use whatsoever.