criley

And I can't find any evidence of any of that.

"Multiple possible causes of CCD have been identified. In 2007, some authorities attributed the problem to biotic factors such as Varroa mites and insect diseases (i.e., pathogens[5] including Nosema apis and Israel acute paralysis virus).[6][7] Other proposed causes include environmental change-related stresses,[8] malnutrition, pesticides (e.g.. neonicotinoids such as clothianidin and imidacloprid[9][10][11]), and migratory beekeeping. other possibilities have included both cell phone radiation[12][13] and genetically modified (GM) crops with pest control characteristics although no evidence has been found to suggest this.[14][15]

Emphasis mine.

[14] http://www.sierraclub.org/biotech/whatsnew/whatsnew_2007-03-...

[15] http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/collapsing-colonie...

If someone has a greater understanding than the Wikipedia consensus and the sources to back it, please respond (or update Wikipedia!)

Yes, every message put on every blog was done by a full time developer working in our industry and not by thousands of children and teenagers and adults who have nothing to do with us but joined the bandwagon as it rolled along.

But hey, all nerdy men are all the same, right?

However, if we stop the research now (by attacking the researchers through monsanto or by passing oppressive gmo regulation that forces them out of the industry), we will never develop superior drought resistant crops.

I believe that the precise modification of crops will be critical to responding to the stresses of climate. Classical breeding can only help us so much and the true impact of climate stress is still in the future.

So you have a mismatch of effort: those who can don't have an incentive to fix the problem for those who can't.

(Or have a counter-incentive: I'm reminded of the anti-monsanto anti-gmo fad in the USA -- despite the fact that GMO foods are our best weapon in producing drought resistant crops for regions most heavily affected by those problems!)

This is a bit shortsighted, I think. It has supported life, yes, but it has not supported CIVILIZATION for millions of years.

Many hypothesize that human civilization, specifically our population size, would be completely and totally unsustainable with even a minor climate change.

Sure -- Earth would be fine! Life would be fine! Heck, we'd likely trigger what we would call an extinction event, but life would recover.

Humanity and civilization however are absolutely dependent on a narrow range of climate for our agriculture. Them's the facts.

If temperatures rise even 10° average, then about the majority of human population centers will be underwater and agriculture as we know it (the plants we're used to eating in bulk) are no longer feasible in the quantity or quality we expect. Those temperatures were seen in the Jurassic, and Earth and life were fine! But I do not think human civilization would be a fraction of what it is under those totally natural circumstances.

So sure. Life will be fine. Humanity could be on the brink, though.

This feels obtuse -- obviously JS today is faster than it's ever been, but we want native c performance out of it. Do you have a in-browser VM solution today that can do complex, GPU-powered full 3D on every platform?

Then your VM solution is already inferior to javascript and will need significant time, money and development to even catch up to javascripts current level of "fast".

(Using, of course, "game" performance as a benchmark for the vague term "fast")

>"The market is speaking, and it's saying that JavaScript needs to go.

What? How do you rationalize this? Every major browser supports it to their core and most are working on dramatic imporvements for their implementations. Every mobile device supports it natively. Every computer I've seen in the past decade supports it.

The market is speaking? Where? Where is the market speaking? What devices are without javascript?

What browsers don't support javascript?

I think you are confusing the "market" for "a small subset of a-typical vocal developers".

They point out, for example, that the IX's in question routinely see 2.0+Tbps peaks, so a 0.3Tbps attack would not be likely to shake a single IX, little like "the internet" itself.

Interesting rebuttal, although certainly not comprehensive.

Seems like 30,000 nodes at 10Mb/s would be more likely?

But I don't have experience in botnets, just curious.

Seriously, go read the community forum response to their recent updates. Unmitigated disaster might be an overstatement for how poorly they're launching updates.

Spotify, you're already overextended. Your staff categorically cannot keep up with what you're asking. Your software is stretched and bugs are flooding in. Each release is introducing MORE broken features and half-baked implementations of last years catch-phrases.

Please, Spotify, stop expanding and start fixing. I've been a loyal customer for some time but I will leave and I will take my money to a company that is actually capable of releasing working desktop software on a schedule...

Gotcha.

EDIT: FWIW, I use Windows8 and think it's superior to 7 in almost every regard :\

I never understood the hate myself, LibreOffice and Old Word have one of the worst uis out there. It's like the Geocities of productivity software.

It's because she's a notable figure on the internet.

I challenge the reader to find any notable figure online who has held a controversial position and not been the target of death threats.

That is an Internet anonymity problem, not a gender problem!

Women are not the only targets of anonymous death threats online!

(Not to excuse the appalling behavior of anonymous cowards who point their threats at almost every notable news target. Seriously, go read the forums on a major partisan site. Vile, disgusting, hurtful and violent language aren't the exception, they're the norm).

By playing into the gender context we're playing once against into these stupid gender arguments where they don't belong.

"But they're using anti-women language"

Of course they are! If it were a crippled man being insulted, why not imagine the language they'd use. If it was a black man being insulted and threatened, guess the language they'd use.

They pick their language to troll their target. They pick it after picking their target -- the language isn't the reason!

And yet again, a non gender issue will be filed under sexism.

I just started the process of converting our few hundred Test::Unit tests to Rspec simply because Test Unit documentation is terrible. Our tests need a lot of work and I'm not that experienced at writing test scripts. I have to learn this as I do it, and I struggled to find resources for learning Test::Unit.

Every blog post, tutorial and guide I can find was written for Rspec.

As much as I'd love to continue using Test::Unit and save myself the hassle of converting from one to the other, I found learning Test::Unit to be one giant brick wall after another.

No one is discussing it, no one is blogging about it, no one is writing stack overflow questions about the issues. (I say, in a discussion about a blog post about it... but this is the exception not the rule, sadly)

For me it was a simple decision: If I want community support, I need to be using the tool the community is actually supporting.

(Not that Rspec documentation is that much better-- I've now resorted to just reading public github repos and looking for spec/ directories to scrutinize and learn from. If anyone has links to any good repos that use rspec tests, I'd love it if you could send them my way! I need more good repos to learn from!)

Every time I hear a programmer condescend towards other programmers for using a higher level language, I also die a little bit inside.

How is javascript not the "metal" of the web? It's a core part of the modern web experience upon which many libraries and frameworks have been built.

I don't understand why that analogy is bad and is worthy of your condescension.

Are you just being condescending to the entire web paradigm in general?

As an Android user, I think you've misanalyzed the stats:

- Despite being a far smaller population, iOS users represent a majority of mobile internet users

- Despite being a far smaller population, iOS users represent a majority of mobile spending on apps

I don't know what Android you're using, but my Android still has over half of it's entire install base (IE, more than all iPhone's out there) using Android 2.x or less and will never be updated.

Keeping (hundreds of) millions of devices stuck on old operating systems is not "winning" anything except install base numbers.

As an Android user-- where's Mailbox? Where's Vine? Where's any of the cool new apps that iOS users got months ago? (Heck, I have a Note II -- where's Android 4.2? How long do I have to wait to get a normal update! How long do I have to wait to even get an announcement that the update is coming?)

Android isn't "winning" anything outright except for the budget smartphone market. I'd love if it did win -- I want the good apps first!

I never meant to imply that one person understood the whole technology system (that's truly absurd), rather that each individual component was designed and implemented intentionally and it's likely that each niche in the industry had at least one person who truly understood it.

Now, take that paradigm and compare it to natural science: No one anywhere ever had any understanding of the system, and now we look at the end result of a constantly changing system and try to ascertain everything from how it works today to how it all began.

I apologize, I could have been more clear in my original post, sorry!

Can you imagine computer science if we had no prior knowledge of computers and had to research the entire process starting at the end point? What a task.

EDIT: I guess it's worth pointing out, however, that Google Now doesn't show ads.

http://www.chromium.org/administrators/policy-list-3

You can whitelist and blacklist extensions, whitelist sources, force install extensions and block them by type only.

It shouldn't be hard to prevent all extensions from running.

I'm just confused by all of the mad-love for MSE. It's good, but I never thought it was the best myself, and I've not seen any objective reasoning for calling it the best.

I was under the impression that MSE routinely did OK in AV benchmarks and rarely even ever held the top spot. How is it a thousand times better?

Or does it's ability to keep you safe not really factor into your analysis of the software?

If you want to donate your barometric data for study, I recommend checking out PressureNet https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ca.cumulonimbu...

The PressureNet dev(s) are active on HackerNews and have made a couple of posts about the app.

For the record, my Galaxy Note II has a barometer as does the Galaxy S3 -- meaning the S4 didn't change anything in this regard!

In my opinion: the use of supplemented food like this will only improve our understanding and increase the speed at which those models are made.

By approaching the problem from BOTH sides we can create the most full expression of what is needed and why.

Still I dislike this excuse because: you run the risk of missing micronutrients every single day on a traditional diet, too.

Your body doesn't care if you forgot a micronutrient due to carelessness or if it simply wasn't in the profile of the whole foods you ate. Missing is missing. Eating popcorn, soda and fast food for a week straight means you miss a lot of important nutrients. And yet you survive.

Let the pioneers have fun and play and learn, that's what I say!

>"I see this guy's protocol as nothing but poisonous in the long run."

You place a burden of evidence on him that you yourself in this very post violated on a number of occasions. You CANNOT call his diet poisonous simply because you disagree with it.

You admitted it yourself:

>"Current research is showing that we are only just beginning to gain understanding of the complexity and health of the GI."

So no offense, but you have literally no ground to say that this is poisonous in the short OR long term, no evidence to back that up, and you cannot rely on a field that cannot support your view.

You have a view on this, congratulations, but it is nothing more than a well-informed opinion. It is not fact, it is not supported by fact and as you've admitted -- it CANNOT at this point be supported by fact that does not yet exist.

Even your link to a TEDX (aka, unvetted content) states upfront: "This talk is a personal narrative and is not yet backed by larger experimentation."

I'm sorry, but you've been consistently and narrow-mindedly against what the OP has put forth. You dismiss his views for their lack of credibility but turn around and post sources that themselves have no credibility (admit to being anecdotal).

You seem to have picked what is correct and are now looking for evidence to support your preconceived notion. You also seem to be falling for the naturalism fallacy by pretending that since his food is "pill and scalpel" it is therefore wrong/bad.

Just my conclusions: obviously he hasn't posted data or even analyzed it, but you present many issues in your posts that I disagree with more strongly than what he puts forth (and I'm not a layman).