pshapiro

I'm a "veteran" iOS/Cocoa developer who has just started his first Android project a few days ago. Coincidence? :)

Is there currently a way on HN to see upvotes alongside downvotes? If not, it seems like a worthy enhancement to me.

There are a number of options. Have a look at the comments on the article page where people list a few, like Step and FutureJS.

Probably within a month or two. We're wrapping up our first release now and are planning to do a small private beta before launch.

I meant relative to the referring scheme. Thanks for the correction. :)

Some notes from his talk:

* <!doctype html>

* The web server can serve certain meta tags (e.g. in .htaccess for apache) which would not have validated. (e.g. X-UA-Compatible to specify content)

* <meta charset="utf-8" /> is acceptible in most browswers

* // instead of http:// makes a relative URL, works in most if not all browsers

* html { overflow-y: scroll; } fixes contents moving due to scrollbar appearance on longer pages

* DD_belatedPNG - better IE PNG fix http://www.dillerdesign.com/experiment/DD_belatedPNG/

* Often a good idea to use font-family "sans-serif" instead of "Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" for better cross-platform sans-serif font choice

You said that lots of scientists wrote papers on gravity. Can you cite a few ? I'm eager to see them. Thanks..

Classic mistake: having someone else implement the site. How can you pivot, adapt, and make good use of feedback if you can't work on the site without having to pay money?

Uncontacted? It looks like they're looking right into the lens!

I'm not saying that global warming is not manmade, and I have also seen quite a bit of the content of the arguments claiming it comes from emissions, but none of them are able to present anything concrete.

As you pointed out, the optimistic models not winning, and in fact the outlook from mainstream scientists' models get worse every year. The problem is compounding -- that's how the world works in fact.

I'm so concerned because nobody considers what I'm talking about seriously, and almost everyone easily discards what I say as the ravings of some pseudoscientific, ignorant apocalypse nut. But unfortunately for their social standing, and fortunately for people who are interested in facts, I know what I talk about.

Let's think about this carefully. If the models predicting the changes through emissions are so accurate, why does the outlook get so drastically worse every year? It's because the system that you refer to as our climate in reality also includes gravitational and magnetic factors. This introduces huge oscillating systems. If physics today has no confirmed understanding about the role of the gravity on the climate, and how a gravitational field is maintained, how could they rule out factors that would influence gravity? In fact, there isn't a real understanding of gravity in mainstream physics in the first place. But they discard questions about its influence like they know.

It's extremely concerning to me that so-called scientists are more concerned about being accepted by their peers than about getting the information we need to save our own lives.

Go ahead and downvote, but karma on hacker news is the smallest price to pay if I can find even one person who wants to confirm what I'm talking about.

Thorium is promising, but I've heard on a TED talk (can't find the link now, it was a talk with lots of data and projection being presented) that even if we were to build one nuclear power plant each day, it would not be enough to keep up with the increase in energy usage, much less to switch over completely. Do you have any figures or an experimental apparatus to back up what you said?

The article makes some big assumptions. Like for example the idea that switching to the renewable energy sources referenced in the article would solve the phenomenon of global warming. The article references human inertia as the only obstacle left but one of the fundamental assumptions made is that simply switching to the alternative sources referred to would allow the environment to recover before it collapses. That's another kind of "inertia" (karma). I have never seen any any solid proof presented by mainstream scientists about the actual cause of global warming. Is there a concrete chain of cause and effect that relates by quantity the amount of emissions with the exact changes in Earth surface temperature?

Besides all this, lots of the renewable energy sources turn out to require more energy to produce and set up than they are able to recover over the span of decades (like wind farming, which is very costly to mine the materials, ship them out, set up, and get going). The article mentions the fiscal cost of setting up these alternative sources but apparently that's not the only thing standing in the way either.

My point is that this article paints a highly idealistic portrait. We don't have enough time left for that!

I work in Brooklyn. hehe..

You're basically right except I don't think HN does this at present. Good luck convincing PG within the next year... :)

Cool, thanks.

One reason is that if you load the web page, you have to download the UI every single page load. With an app, the downloaded data should be quite a bit more stripped down... but to be honest I couldn't say how the app gets its data. It might be scraping downloaded pages. In that case, I'd tend to agree with you about an HN app as it doesn't contain anything that requires a fluid interface.

It's a trap!

lol... We got a lot of snow here too. My cofounder was tied up for most of the day negotiating her way through the transit system back home. At least I assume that's what you mean. :)

I asked a question on Quora about the supplies required. Let's see what happens!

http://www.quora.com/Space-Colonization/What-provisions-and-...

Heavens, not by any means, "forever marooned." Just for a maximum of 10 years while we get another mission with a return vessel over to Mars. In the mean time, those men and women could establish a fledgling colony there with hydroponics, a rover or two, and ways to build housing with present materials. I'm not in a position to comment accurately about how long it will take them to establish the livable colony because I don't know specifically what provisions and methods of atmosphere production/recycling they're bringing with.

Think of it like a startup. PG once wrote something like (paraphrasing here), to prove that a startup will work, try to build the smallest functional subset and build from there. And launch quickly and iterate often.

After we get a craft to pick them up, we'll have a temporary colony that the return craft's crew can occupy.

Besides, if those men/women were not able to stand ten or twenty years of loneliness and hard work being colonists, are they really the right people to send on a mission to explore another planet?

Why do the men and women have to be brought back? It adds a big amount to the requirements of the craft to get them there.

Perhaps that space, weight, time, and money could be better spent on developing long-term survival and colony-establishment equipment and techniques.

It seems that the point is that Wikileaks apparently broke no laws.

"FWIW, there's already a thread on this topic:"

Thanks for pointing that out. Had no idea.

You've quite an impressive list there!

Thanks man!

Interesting -- that's actually very similar in process to what we're doing. :)

Confirmed! I find one of the most useful things to do when i'm not making much progress is to take a walk and think about the problem away from the computer. Often times I find a much simpler solution than what I was trying before.

I gave you what you need to know to answer your question... I don't care what a religion says. They usually don't know what they're talking about. I didn't know any religion validated embryonic stem cell harvesting and I am saying that completely honestly.

Nope, not Jewish. Only by stem cell. Religions are insufficient in some major ways. But they found time to include a clause about embryonic research, huh?

Good question. If you lay out your options that you know about, I'll point out if there are among them any acceptable ones in my opinion.

I guess I should read his book... but his defitions of engineering and science are not good enough fmpov because there is no matter to verify. A simple example is that you could interchange the definitions and they would not be 100% incorrect either.

I came here to extoll the benefits of stem cell therapy with bio-matter obtained from the proper sources... but you beat me to it. :)