Quote from blackbird04217 :

100cm is also 0.0001km another, still clean example of moving the decimal point. (I believe I moved it correctly :P).

You did not.

Quote from arco :

Aweful internet TV solution by NRK, silverlight wtf!

Huh. I've actually been really impressed with the steaming site so far. Smoothest streaming video I can remember seeing. It even automatically adjusts bitrate as window size/bandwidth changes (up to 3.5Mbit). Compared to the summer Olympics stream it's night and day.

Just a shame it's locked to Silverlight (and thus its supported platforms).

Quote from rediske :

I like this thread because it's about people telling what they feel about how things are with LFS atm. I like a lot of the posts above because they represent sort of a valve to let out peoples feelings and thoughts about how they see LFS's development and stuff.

Except it's not a valve. It a spinning, churning generator or whine and rage.

All these threads do is provide a place where whiners of all persuasions can get together and have a big 'ol groupwank. They piss each other off by using tested and true flamebait and then use the reaction they get to justify their own, equally misplaced, rage. It's the only thing the interwebs are used for these days. Flamewars. Well, flamewars and porn.

Either way, nothing but wankery can come of it...

Quote from DarkTimes :

If anything I'd say it runs a bit faster than VS2008.

Are you kidding, or are the .NET bits really that different from the C++ ones?

In my experience 2010 beta 2 is slow as molasses and horribly buggy to boot. Things like "go to declaration/definition" are completely unusable since they usually lock up the entire IDE for many seconds while it fails to find the declaration I asked for. Intellisense is still completely broken, even though they bragged that they had fixed it this time. It also uses more than twice the memory doing the same thing as VS2008, which on my 2GB laptop means even a simple compile of my framework leads to massive disk swapping.

Quite frankly I find it an unusable mess. If it weren't for the C++ compiler improvements (which are also rather buggy) I'd stay with VS2008.

Quote from Klutch :

I think Louis Walsh completely missed the entire point of what the facebook campaign were trying to do..

And what is that exactly? Give the record industry the middle finger by earning them more money? I'm sure they're real worried. Until you get those leaching middlemen out of the picture you're still just playing their game.

Quote from Rappa Z :

I guess it is true...

In Soviet Russia, gum chew you.

You missed the obvious one: "In Soviet Russia, bubbles blow YOU!"

Quote from ATC Quicksilver :

It will be smaller, faster, less expensive and more useless and annoying.

Most accurate response so far if the last decades are anything to go by.

Quote from DTrott :

Contain's 1.3 billion transistors.

That's just mad.

Not really. The latest Radeons have almost twice that, at a smaller process to boot.

Quote from SamH :

Fine. Then stop trolling this thread.

I'm trolling, but they guy suggesting this is all a Nazi conspiracy is not. Good to know where you stand. I'm out.

Quote from SamH :

Are we? Really?

How do you feel about the information in the leaked emails?

How do you feel about the fact that the climatology community is, and has been for decades, divided on AGW?

How do you feel about the upcoming Copenhagen summit, which is pushing for billions of dollars of governmental expenditure, being based on scientific conclusions that have not been supported by evidential data, despite this being contrary to normal scientific processes?

Conspiracy theories aside, the email/document leak occurred, the climatology community is divided and the UEA CRU's conclusions are the principle basis for carbon taxes. How do you feel about these things?

How I feel about them has nothing to do with what I think of the quality of discussion over here. I'd be more that happy to discuss those points in a forums that isn't filled with angry, angry consipracy theorists that have just (in their minds) gotten their conspiracies confirmed. There's no point. It's a waste of energy, and only seems to lead to even more anger and even wilder conspiracy theories.

This whole field has gotten so completely out of hand I've given up on it completely. Congratulations. You won. Hooray!

You have proof that:
- "the group saying it's no big d ... rely of German globalists"
- "the science behind the proposa ... t world nations and more."
- "Google has just censored the w ... tocomplete search feature"

Because those were the conspiracies I was talking about, and I sure haven't seen any proof. These comments are just so far beyond loony-bin it's not even funny. As the saying goes "It's impossible to reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themself into.", which means this whole thread is nigh on useless. Never in my life have I seen such a display of violent ignorance and hatred.

You're all ****ing mad.

Why don't you go back and read what statements he's actually made? I think you'll find none of them mention the science behind global warming more than in passing. Knowing that it should be easy to understand why he gets all annoyed when he's got several frothing conspiracy-nuts jumping on him to back up science he's never made statements about in the first place.

Quote from mookie427 :

....and you've repeatedly ignored requests to actually back up what you've been saying with some sort of science, not just mumbo-jumbo and pitiful excuses.

Back up what exactly? That scientists are in fact human? You've built such an elaborate strawman to argue here it's hard to keep up what statements you've attributed to Shotglass this time.

I'm sure a list of points he has made that you would like him to back up would help.

Quote from the_angry_angel :

Maybe I'm just not getting it from the Spirit introduction page, but is Spirit a (better|different) objective version of Lexx?

I've never used Lex, so I can't really comment on that in any detail, but it's basically a library that allows you to write the language grammar directly in EBNF form as plain C++ code. Lex requires preprocessing if I'm not mistaken? From what Wikipedia tells me Spirit fills the role of Yacc as well (parser generator), so Spirit = Lex + Yacc I guess you could say.

Quote from Ian.H :

It bugs me when coding in C++ as it's not a language I'll claim to be fluent in at all that I haven't yet grasped the use of RegEx construction and normally have to resort to using various split() type calls and arrays to finally drill down to the data I need to access.

Boost.RegEx? I personally prefer Spirit for my string parsing needs though.

Last edited by wien, Fri 27 Nov 2009, 21:01.

Quote from 5haz :

Because they have lots of them, a ton of feathers weighs the same as a ton of bricks, but you have to have a lot more feathers than bricks to make a ton, just like how you have to have a lot more wind turbines than coal fired power stations to make up 20% of a nation's energy consumption.

I was contesting the argument that windmills don't make back the energy they cost to produce and erect until 14 years have passed. That is obviously ludicrous when countries like Denmark manage to get 20% of the energy they produce from windmills. You'd have to be seriously deluded to think most of that energy went towards producing and erecting wind turbines.

I didn't say a bloody thing about the relative efficiency of windmills compared other sources of energy, so why you felt the need to bring that up I have no idea.

Quote from BlueFlame :

Then what you are saying is that CO2 is a more harmful 'greenhouse gas' yet you say water vapour contributes more to a global warming ideal?

Ideal? Anyway, yep. That's exactly what I'm saying. Water vapour is a feedback contributor to warming. Since its concentration is almost exclusively tied to the temperature and it reacts to changes in temperature very quickly (within days), it does not cause changes in temperature in and of itself. It simply reacts to changes in temperature caused by other, slower, sources and exaggerates their effects.

So when we add CO2 to the atmosphere, CO2 that will stay around for up to 200 years, the greenhouse effect increases and the temperature goes up. This allows the air to hold more water vapour (which quickly evaporates from the oceans). This increases the greenhouse effect and causes the temperature to go up even more. A feedback of the initial CO2 release.

If we were to (artificially) add even more vapour at this point the air would not be able to hold it, and it would quickly fall to the earth as rain. Add more CO2 at this point and it would just add to the existing concentration, stay around for up to 200 years, increase the greenhouse effect, increase the temperature and add even more water vapour. Round we go.

Hence, CO2 causes warming, water vapour makes it worse.

Are you going to back up your claims wrt. volcanoes then? I got all excited when I saw you posted again.

Quote from mookie427 :

In case you were wondering, I was asking whether it was the case. I wasn't stating anything, I wanted someone to reply sensibly to the question posed, whether it is true that cars that produce only water vapour could cause more damage...The question just popped into my head so I didn't have the opportunity to do any sort of research into it

Fair enough. These threads just leave me all sarcastic and spiteful.

While water vapour is indeed a very strong greenhouse gas it also returns to the earth as rain within about a week (on average) of being released. CO2 needs between 50 - 200 years to do the same round trip. Any CO2 we release today will come in addition to the CO2 we released over the last 50 - 200 years, and that way it's concentration increases. The vapour consentration of the air is also almost exclusively dependent on the temperature. Water vapour does not cause warming in itself, it's concentration just follows along as the temperature changes.

Last edited by wien, Fri 27 Nov 2009, 16:22.

Quote from mookie427 :

Or have I missed something?

Why don't you do a little research before throwing these Glen Becksque questions up into the air?

Quote from BlueFlame :

I don't need to. Using your own logic, methane and water vapour outputs can't be controlled by humans using your logic again, simple evapouration of the ocean is causing more to global warming than CO2 yes, but please tell me what the major cause of global warming/climate change is, because of course, you know everything their is to know, and you're clearly a professionalism in using sarcasm when you don't have an arguement.

So that's a "no" then?

Quote from BlueFlame :

Why do you refer to CO2 as a pollutant?

I do? News to me. I'd call the act of releasing into the atmosphere huge amounts of CO2 that would otherwise not be released "polluting", but it depends on context. Either way I haven't even used the word in this thread.

Quote from BlueFlame :

more regurgitated insanity

So we're just going to go through these myths one by one now then? Let me help:
- Scientists were predicting cooling in the 70s!
- The sun is getting hotter - look at mars and venus heating up!
- Methane and water vapour contribute more to global warming than CO2!
- We can't even tell what the weather is going to be like, we obviously can't predict climate change!
- It was cold here last winter, the planet is obviously not heating up!
- Greenland was once all green and stuff!

Now, with those out of the way, would you care to back up your claims that volcanoes contribute more to climate change (I totally did that on purpose) than the CO2 we release into the atmosphere?

Quote from BlueFlame :

It clearly has slipped their mind, what is the point holding back a change in our climate we can't ultimately control until a Volcano eventually DOES erupt. All it does in the mean-time is give more money to our governments... Oh yea... Get it now?

How about you run along an do a little of that math you were requesting others do earlier? The effects of volcanoes are insignificant compared to the amounts of CO2 people are worrying about. The warming effect of that CO2 is even believed to be offset by the cooling effect of the aerosols produced by the gases and particulate matter spewed from a volcanic eruption.

That's right, volcanoes result in global cooling if their effects are taken on their own. As such they actually prevent global warming and are not the cause of the warming we're seeing.

Quote from BlueFlame :

Madman's rant.

Yep. You've cracked it. No climate scientists even thought about the sun or volcanoes, much less incorporated their effects in their science. No sir, that completely slipped their minds.

Whops. Myth busted.

Quote from Becky Rose :

Wind Turbines: Are so innefficient that they take around 14 years to generate enough power to pay for their cost of manufacture and installation. Sea based turbines (where we are headed) are even more expensive to install.

Would you please stop parroting this stupid line? Have you ever been off your own island? Half your neighbouring countries derive a significant portion of their energy from wind. In Denmark it was 20% the last time I checked. How do you match that fact with your statement? Are you talking out of your ass?

Quote from geeman1 :

The problem isn't that people don't have DX10 GPUs, the problem is that they are still using XP.

Yep. I really wish MS would put out a version of D3D11 for XP, only supporting the D3D9 subset. It's not like the old excuse of differing driver models still applies, so it's just artificial product differentiation that's stopping them at this point. Up to them of course, but if they did that D3D11 would instantly become the no-brainer API for Windows graphics.

Unless something magic happens to the LFS userbase over the next few years, I think OpenGL may be the way to go for LFS if an API change is to happen. As obnoxious as that API is to use (comparatively speaking), it is at least more or less fully featured on all cards using Windows 2000 through 7. As a bonus you get better portability towards other platforms if Scawen ever gets inspired.